Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se

Alfredo García-Pardo

Abstract This paper offers a novel analysis of the Spanish light verbs poner(se)
‘to become’ and quedar(se) ‘to become/stay’ in combination with adjectives. These
verbs have the peculiarity that they may appear with or without se in these construc-
tions, with clear effects on argument structure and thematic and aspectual interpre-
tation. I propose a unified formal analysis that takes event complexity and argument
coindexing as the common denominator of se in these complex predicates. I further
observe that these effects with se are not exclusive to these light verbs, but can also
be observed in certain types of lexical verbs, strongly suggesting that both lexical
and light verbs lexicalize the same eventive spine.

1 Introduction

Spanish has a rich set of aspectual light verbs, also known as ‘pseudocopulative’
in traditional grammar, that are translatable as ‘to become’ in English and which
appear with se, sometimes optionally and sometimes obligatorily. However, despite
their surface similarity, these verbs have distinct syntactic and semantic properties
that become apparent upon closer inspection, especially if we take into account the
role of se in the structures. This paper will focus on two of these verbs: poner(se) (e.g.
(1a)) and quedar(se) (e.g. (1b)).1 I gloss se as refl, given that it is morphologically
reflexive.

Alfredo García-Pardo
State University of New York - Purchase College, 735 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, New York
10577, e-mail: alfredo.garciapardo@purchase.edu

1 There are two other light verbs denoting change in Spanish, volver(se) and hacer(se) ‘to become’.
The received wisdom is that these two verbs take Individual-level adjectives, whereas poner(se)
and quedar(se) take Stage-level adjectives. See Demonte and Masullo (1999) and Morimoto and
Pavón-Lucero (2007) for further discussion of these four verbs.

1
2 Alfredo García-Pardo

(1) a. Berta se puso {fuerte/ nerviosa/ rígida}.

Berta refl put strong nervous rigid
‘Berta became {strong/ nervous/ rigid}.’
b. Juan se quedó {pálido/ tranquilo/ delgado}.
Juan refl stayed pale calm thin
‘Juan became {pale/ calm/ thin}.’

The study of these verbs is important for two reasons. First, although the status
of se in the structure of the VP has been extensively discussed in the literature on
Romance languages, much less attention has been paid to instances where the main
verb is not lexical, but light.2 Also, the theoretical research on non-verbal predication
in Hispanic linguistics has focused mostly on the copular split (i.e. ser vs. estar ‘to
be’), whereas the split on light verbs has been largely neglected beyond the classic
descriptive studies.
From this perspective, the goal of this paper is to argue that the grammatical
behavior of these light verbs, and the different effects observed with se, can be
derived from the event structures they lexicalize. I propose that se surfaces as a
morphological reflex when the same argument occupies two different positions in
the syntactically articulated event structure (in the spirit of Cuervo 2003, 2014).3
These structures, as well as the different behavior of se, are essentially not different
from that of other lexical verbs that may appear with se (eg. romper(se) ‘to break’
or morir(se) ‘to die’). I will further show how the formal aspectual interpretation
of these structures straightforwardly explains the descriptive observations regarding
poner(se) and quedar(se) in the traditional literature.
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the data on poner(se) and
quedar(se), with particular attention to the role of se. Section 3 introduces the basics
of the theoretical framework I have chosen for my study as well as my proposal
regarding the structure of these light verbs. Section 4 concludes the paper.

2 The term light verb was originally coined by Jespersen (1965). In Jespersen’s view, which I adopt
here, a lexical verb is a conceptually rich verb that has meaning in isolation and belongs to the open
class type of lexical items. Light verbs, on the other hand, belong to the closed (i.e. grammatical)
class of lexical items and they are parasitic on a lexical predicate to form a syntactically and
semantically coherent (complex) predicate.
3 In this respect, my work takes the stance that the so-called unaccusative se signals both reflexivity
and aspectual complexity. As far as the reflexivity analysis is concerned—technical differences
aside—I side with Chierchia (2004) and Koontz-Garboden (2009). In terms of the aspectual com-
plexity of se, the reader is referred to Vivanco (this volume) and the overview therein.
Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 3

2 Poner(se) and quedar(se): the data

As I mentioned in the introduction, the structures of the type <poner(se)/ quedar(se)

+ AP> are change of state constructions.4 They accept in x time PPs and adverbial
modifiers such as little by little or progressively, as we can see in (2).
(2) a. La pantalla se puso negra {en un minuto/ poco a poco}.
the screen refl put black {in a minute/ little by little
‘The screen went black {in a minute/ little by little}.’
b. El bar se quedó vacío {en una hora/ progresivamente}.
the bar refl stayed empty {in an hour/ progressively
‘The bar became empty {in an hour/ progressively}.’
However, <quedarse + AP> structures can also be stative. The sentences in (3) do
not denote a change of state, but rather a permanence in a state. That is, (3a) means
that the chair Catalina was supposed to sit on remained empty during a contextually
relevant period of time. Similarly, (3b) does not mean that Pedro awakened, but
rather, that he remained awake for the whole night.5 As expected, stative quedar(se)
does not pass telicity tests (e.g. (3c)).6
(3) a. Catalina no vino y su silla se quedó vacía.
Catalina not came and her chair refl stayed empty
‘Catalina didn’t show up and her chair remained empty.’
b. Pedro se quedó despierto toda la noche.
Pedro refl stayed awake all the night
‘Pedro stayed awake all night.’
c. Roberto se quedó despierto {*en diez minutos/ *poco a poco}.
Roberto refl stayed awake {*in ten minutes/ *little by little
‘Roberto stayed awake {*in ten minutes/ *little by little}.’
Se has different roles with poner(se) and quedar(se), so I will discuss them in
turn, beginning with the latter verb. In general, se is optional with quedar (Demonte
and Masullo 1999; Morimoto and Pavón-Lucero 2007), as (4) shows.
4 For reasons of space, I will restrict my study of these light verbs to adjectival predicates. However,
poner(se) and quedar(se) can also appear with other non-verbal predicates, such as PPs. Moreover,
while many adjectives can take poner(se) and quedar(se) with equal ease, other adjectives can only
combine with either one or the other (e.g. gordo ‘fat’ can only appear with poner(se) and débil
‘weak’ can only take quedar(se)). Focusing on these restrictions in depth goes beyond the scope
of this work, but see Bybee and Eddington (2006) and Morimoto and Pavón-Lucero (2007) for
discussion.
5 As Morimoto and Pavón-Lucero (2007) observe, there is also a counter-expectational presupposi-
tion involved with quedar(se). As such, it is odd to say, without further context, Se quedó despierto
toda la mañana ‘He stayed awake all morning’, since the expectation is that one is typically awake
in the morning.
6 The reader may wonder why a change-of-state reading is precluded in (3c). It is due to the
selectional restrictions of change-of-state quedar(se) (see also ft. 4), which cannot take the adjective
despierto.
4 Alfredo García-Pardo

(4) a. Julio (se) quedó contento con mi regalo.

Julio (refl stayed happy with my gift
‘Julio was happy with my present.’
b. Juan (se) quedó ciego después del accidente.
Juan (refl stayed blind after of-the accident
‘Juan went blind after the accident.’ (From Demonte and Masullo
1999:2513)

In the descriptive literature, the difference between quedar and quedarse is taken
to boil down to two factors: thematic and aspectual. With respect to the thematic
factor, it is observed that quedarse allows for an agentive interpretation of the subject,
whereas quedar does not (Demonte and Masullo 1999). Notice the oddity of quedar
in the agentive context of (5), as well as the possibility of having imperatives with
quedarse (6a), but not with quedar (6b).

(5) El hombre *(se) quedó quieto sin moverse mientras la enfermera

the man *(refl stayed still without moving while the nurse
le extraía sangre.
dat drew blood
‘The man remained still while the nurse drew blood from him.’

(6) a. ¡Quédate {quieto/ tranquilo}!

¡stay-refl {still/ calm
‘Stay {still/ calm}!’
b. *¡Queda {quieto/ tranquilo}!
*¡stay {still/ calm
‘Stay {still/ calm}!’ (From Demonte and Masullo 1999:2513)

Regarding the aspectual factor, Demonte and Masullo (1999) observe that
quedarse emphasizes the achievement of a state, and quedar focuses on the re-
sulting state. As evidence for this aspectual difference, Morimoto and Pavón-Lucero
(2007) observe that quedarse accepts the progressive and the adverbial modifier poco
a poco ‘little by little’, whereas quedar does not (e.g. (7) and (8), from Morimoto
and Pavón-Lucero (2007:46)).

(7) a. Está quedándose sordo.

is staying-refl deaf
‘He is going deaf.’
b. *Está quedando sordo.
*is staying deaf
‘He is going deaf.’ (From Morimoto and Pavón-Lucero 2007:46)

(8) a. Se quedó sordo poco a poco.

refl stayed deaf little by little
‘He went deaf little by little.’
Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 5

b. ??Quedó sordo poco a poco.

??stayed deaf little by little
‘He went deaf little by little.’ (From Morimoto and Pavón-Lucero
2007:46)

It has also been observed that se cannot appear with quedar when its complement
is a passive participle (Demonte and Masullo 1999; Morimoto and Pavón-Lucero
2007). I provide examples in (9), adapted from Demonte and Masullo (1999:2512).

(9) a. La explicación (*se) quedó cuidadosamente aclarada (por las

the explanation (*refl stayed carefully clarified (by the
autoridades).
authorities
‘The explanation became carefully clarified by the authorities.’
b. Los alimentos (*se) quedaron cuidadosamente limpiados.
the food (*refl stayed carefully cleaned
‘The food got carefully washed.’ (Adapted from Demonte and Masullo
1999:2512)

The se in poner(se), on the other hand, marks the transitive-unaccusative alterna-

tion. The transitive counterpart does not appear with se but the unaccusative version
does, as in (10). This is unlike quedar(se), which does not participate in this alterna-
tion: for a transitive paraphrasing we need a different verb, dejar ‘to leave’, as (11)
shows (Porroche 1990; Marín 2000; Morimoto and Pavón-Lucero 2007).

(10) a. La tormenta puso el cielo gris.

the storm put the sky gray
‘The storm made the sky gray.’
b. El cielo se puso gris.
the sky refl put gray
‘The sky turned gray.’

(11) a. El lago se quedó seco.

the lake refl stayed dry
‘The lake got/ stayed dry.’
b. La sequía {*quedó/ dejó} seco el lago.
the drought {*stayed/ left dry the lake
‘The drought left the lake dry.’

To summarize, poner(se) and quedar(se) have differences in terms of thematic

and aspectual interpretation, as well as argument structure, in which the absence or
presence of se plays a key role. I summarize the empirical observations made in this
section on Table 1.
These properties, interestingly, are not essentially different from those found in
many lexical verbs. Poner(se) patterns with change-of-state verbs like romper(se)
6 Alfredo García-Pardo

Table 1 Main grammatical properties of poner(se) and quedar(se)

Properties ponerse quedarse quedar
Aspectual reading Telic Telic/ Stative Stative
Transitive counterpart Yes No No
Optional se No Yes Yes
Agentive subject possible Yes Yes No
Aspectual focus Change Change Result state
Appears with passive participles No Yes Yes

‘to break’, which also undergo the transitive-unaccusative alternation (e.g. (12)).
Quedar(se), on the other hand, patterns with unaccusative such as caer(se) ‘to fall’.
Syntactically, they do not have transitive variants (e.g. (13a)) and se is optional
(e.g. (13b)). Semantically, we find similar patterns between those lexical verbs and
quedar(se). First, the se variant allows for agentive readings, whereas the se-less
variant does not (e.g. (14)). Second, se variants seem to focus on the change, whereas
se-less variants focus on the result. Teomiro García (2013:146) notes that modifiers
such as de costado ‘sideways’ have different interpretations with caer(se) verbs:
with se-less variants, de costado modifies the result state, whereas with se variants
it modifies the process event (i.e. the manner of falling), as we can see in (15). Se,
then, has aspectual effects even in intransitive lexical verbs where its presence or
absence is optional.

(12) a. Pedro rompió el vaso.

Pedro broke the glass
‘Pedro broke the glass.’
b. El vaso se rompió.
the glass refl broke
‘The glass broke.’

(13) a. *Pedro cayó a Juan.

*Pedro fell dom Juan
(‘Pedro fell Juan.’)
b. Pedro (se) cayó.
Pedro (refl fell
‘Pedro fell.’

(14) Pedro *(se) cayó a propósito.

Pedro *(refl fell on purpose
‘Pedro fell on purpose.’

(15) a. Juan cayó de costado.

Juan fell of side
‘Juan fell on his side.’ [Juan fell down and ended up on his side]
Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 7

b. Juan se cayó de costado.

Juan refl fell of side
‘Juan fell sideways.’ [Juan’s position while falling was sideways]

3 The proposal

Having presented the main empirical data under study in Section 2, I will now
introduce the theoretical framework and my own analysis for the syntax and semantics
of these light verbs in relation to se.

3.1 Overview of the theoretical framework

I assume that the traditional VP is composed of three verbal projections as in

(16), each of which denotes a separate subevent (Ramchand 2008). The subevent
introduced by procP is dynamic whereas the ones introduced by initP and resP are
stative. The aspectual meaning of the VP (i.e. the different event types) is derived by
causational entailments between events in the decomposed VP configuration, read
off from a head-complement relation configuration as in (17), adapted from Hale and
Keyser (1993) (i.e. the higher subevent e1 causes or brings about the lower subevent
e2 ).

(16) a. init(iation)P: initiational sub-event, introduces an initiator argument

b. proc(ess)P: dynamic sub-event, introduces an undergoer argument.
c. res(ult)P: result sub-event, introduces a resultee argument.

(17) a. VP

V VP
b. e1 → e2

Thematic roles, in this system, are not grammatical primitives, but entailments
from the aspectual structure. For instance, the subject of initP is not an Initiator
because it is a thematic position per se, nor is Initiator a theta role in the classic
sense: it is an Initiator, descriptively speaking, because it appears in a complex
aspectual configuration in which the subevent introduced by init forms a causal
chain with the events below (introduced by either procP or resP) and as such its
subject, by entailment, is interpreted as the entity that causes or brings about the
eventuality. The subject of resP, similarly, is a Resultee insofar as the subevent it is
a subject of is caused by a causing subevent (introduced by either initP or procP). If
resP where the only verbal projection in the clause, its subject would no longer be
a Resultee, but a stative Holder (I will actually argue in Section 3.2 that this is the
case with se-less quedar). With respect to the syntax of se, I assume that it is the
8 Alfredo García-Pardo

morpho-phonological reflex of a co-referential relation between arguments within

the VP.78 This relation comes about when an argument is copied onto the higher
adjacent specifier within the syntactic structure of the articulated VP. I represent it
schematically in (18). Note that the syntactic movement of arguments in Ramchand’s
system is semantically meaningful, which means that an argument may have more
than one aspectual role in the event decomposition.

(18) VP1

DP V’

V VP2
se
DP ...

I will now present the structures I propose for these light verbs, as well as the
evidence for each structure and the pertinent discussion.

3.2 Quedar and change-of-state quedarse

I propose that the light verb quedar lexicalizes a single res head, which denotes
a stative subevent. Since there are no higher verbal projections, resP is simply
interpreted as a state, without implications of there being a previous event of change.
The single argument of the verb is a subject of state (a ‘holder’, to use common
terminology) and the predicative adjective is a complement of res, which provides
the state denoted by res with lexical content.

(19) a. La silla quedó vacía.

The chair remained empty
‘The chair remained empty.’

7 For similar proposals, see Mendikoetxea (2000) and Cuervo (2003, 2014); for semantic accounts
along the same lines, the reader is referred to Chierchia (2004) and Koontz-Garboden (2009).
8 An anonymous reviewer asks how the spell-out of se is restricted, given that it is not the case
that all coindexed arguments trigger se. The reviewer points out the case of coindexed direct and
indirect arguments (see (i), from Otero 1999:1462).

(i) Las transnacionales (*se𝑖 ) vendieron la madre patria𝑖 a sí𝑖 misma.

the multinationals *(refl sold the mother land to self same
‘The multinational corporations sold the mother land to itself.’

A plausible solution would be to stipulate that ApplP cannot host reflexive morphology, under
the assumption that the two internal arguments of ditransitive verbs are introduced by a low ApplP
complement of V (Pylkkänen 2002). I leave aside this issue for future work.
Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 9

b. resP

DP res’

La silla
res AP
quedó
vacía

Quedarse, in its change-of-state use, is built from stative quedar with an additional
procP, the dynamic projection, on top of resP. The argument in (Spec, resP) moves up
to (Spec, procP). Now resP, selected for by proc, denotes a result state brought about
by a process, and the argument is interpreted as both the Undergoer and Resultee of
the eventuality.

(20) a. La falda se quedó anticuada.

The skirt refl got old-fashioned
‘The skirt became old-fashioned.’
b. procP

DP proc’

La falda
proc resP
se quedó
DP res’

La falda
res AP
quedó
anticuada

These structures shed light on the descriptive literature as follows. Quedar ‘fo-
cuses’ on the result state because it is strictly stative: there might have been a previous
change-of-state event, but it is not asserted (remember examples (7) and (8)). How-
ever, I side with Camacho (2012) in that quedar has inchoative semantics encoded in
its lexical entry, i.e. it grammatically specifies a beginning point for the state, hence
its apparently contradictory characterization in the literature as a result state, rather
than a simple state. On the other hand, quedarse ‘focuses’ on the event of change
simply because it is an event of change, built with procP and resP.
Aside from the differences in aspectual interpretation, there is further syntactico-
semantic evidence that my proposal is on the right track. As it is known, adverbs like
almost and again only allow one reading with states and activities, but two readings
with change-of-state verbs: with the latter, these adverbs can scope over the result
state or the process sub-event, depending on where in the syntax they attach (see von
Stechow 1995 for German and Cuervo 2014 for optional-se unaccusatives). As we
10 Alfredo García-Pardo

can see in (21a) and (22a), quedar only has one reading for these adverbs, whereas
with quedarse there is a scope ambiguity (e.g. (21b) and (22b)).9

(21) a. El restaurante casi quedó vacío.

the restaurant almost remained empty
‘The restaurant almost remained empty.’
1. The state of the restaurant being empty failed to hold (regardless of
how many people ended up being in the restaurant).
almost < resP
b. El restaurante casi se quedó vacío.
the restaurant almost refl became empty
‘The restaurant almost became empty.’
1. The restaurant almost began to lose customers, but didn’t at the end.
almost < procP < resP
2. The restaurant began losing customers and it was close to becoming
fully empty.
procP < almost < resP

(22) a. El restaurante quedó vacío otra vez.

the restaurant remained empty other time
‘The restaurant remained empty again.’
1. The state of the restaurant being empty came to hold again.
again < resP
b. El restaurante se quedó vacío otra vez.
the restaurant refl became empty other time
‘The restaurant remained empty again.’
1. The restaurant became empty again (i.e. the change of state happened
twice).
again < procP < resP
2. The state of the restaurant being empty came to hold again (no im-
plications of there being a change of state the first time).
procP < again < resP
9 The adverb casi ‘almost’ does not always deliver a clear ambiguity with these light verbs, as
an anonymous reviewer rightly notes. This happens mostly when they select adjectives denoting
psychological states. What is more, this adverb sounds weird with psychological predicates to begin
with (e.g. (2)). A likely explanation is that it is hard to see how a psychological (change-of-)state
would be compatible with any of the possible readings delivered by casi, i.e. how can one assess
the degree to which a person can be said to be close to be nervous (i.e. with casi scoping below
the process event and above the result state)? Or how can one assess whether the whole event of a
person being or becoming nervous could have almost begun (i.e. with casi scoping over the whole
event)?

(ii) ?Pedro casi se puso nervioso.

?Pedro almost refl put nervous
(‘Pedro almost got nervous.’)
Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 11

3.3 Stative quedarse

I argue that stative quedarse, just like I proposed for change-of-state quedarse, is
syntactically and semantically more complex than stative quedar. Stative quedarse is
built from quedar, also like its change-of-state version. In this case, the higher verbal
projection is initP. The theme argument in (Spec,resP) moves up to (Spec,initP). I
provide an example in (23).

(23) a. Pedro se quedó despierto.

Pedro refl stayed awake
‘Pedro stayed awake.’
b. initP

DP init’

Pedro
init resP
se quedó
DP res’

Pedro
res AP
quedó
despierto

The semantic consequences of this syntactic structure are the following. With
respect to the aspectual interpretation of the structure, it is clear that we will not
have a dynamic event, since procP does not project: the resulting predicate then
cannot be a change of state, but a state. Note that, despite its stativity, the structure
is nonetheless causative and resultative: there is a stative causative relation between
a causing state, denoted by initP, and a result state, denoted by resP. The single
argument is, in turn, both the Initiator and the Resultee of the eventuality: Pedro
is bringing about (or maintaining, if you wish) his own state of being-awake. Both
the stativity and the agentivity of stative quedarse are then derived by the syntactic
structure and, indeed, the thematic factor alluded to in the descriptive literature, i.e.
the link between se and agentivity.10 Stative quedarse is, then, a stative causative

10 It seems that the link between agentivity and se is indeed restricted to the stative version of
quedarse. While stative quedarse is clearly agentive (e.g. (iiia), and see also (5) and (6)), change-
of-state quedarse does not seem to be (e.g. (iiib)). This is not surprising, given that change-of-state
quedarse does not include initP in its decomposition.

(iii) a. Pedro se quedó despierto con la intención de estudiar.

Pedro refl stayed awake with the intention of study
‘Pedro stayed awake with the intention of studying.’
b. ??Pedro se quedó delgado con la intención de tener mejor salud.
Pedro refl got thin with the intention of have better health
12 Alfredo García-Pardo

predication, rather than a simple state. The event type of stative causatives has been
studied mostly in the realm of object-experiencer psychological verbs (OEPVs),
i.e. verbs in which the object is the experiencer of the psychological state denoted
by the verb (Pesetsky 1995; Arad 1998; Pylkkänen 2000; Kratzer 2000; Rothmayr
2009, a.m.o.). The main empirical evidence in favor of analyzing OEPVs as stative
causatives is that many languages show overt causative markers with these verbs, as
we can see in (24) (emphasis mine).

(24) a. Hyttyset inho-tta-vat Mikko-a.

mosquitos.nom findDisgusting-caus-3pl Mikko-par
‘Mosquitos disgust Mikko.’ (Finnish, from Pylkkänen 2000:418)
b. Sono sirase-ga Tanaka-o yorokob-ase-ta.
that news-nom Tanaka-acc be-pleased-caus-past
‘That news pleased Tanaka.’ (Japanese, from Pesetsky 1995:67)
c. ha-seret hifxid et rina.
the-film frightened.caus acc rina
‘The film frightened Rina.’ (Hebrew, from Sichel 2010:170)

As it turns out, Spanish stative OEPVs have causative morphology as well, in the
form of affixes such as a-, en- and -izar (roughly, ‘-ize’, ‘-en’) (Marín and Sánchez-
Marco 2012). This is illustrated in example (25). Crucially, Spanish stative OEPVs
have intransitive versions that appear with se as well (Marín and McNally 2011;
Marín and Sánchez-Marco 2012), as shown in (26).

(25) a. La crisis aterroriza a Vanessa.

the crisis terror-izes dom Vanessa
‘The crisis terrorizes Vanessa.’
b. Las peleas me entristecen mucho.
the fights me sadden much
‘Fights make me very sad.’

(26) asustar(se) ’to scare’, impresionar(se) ’to impress’, aburrir(se) ’to bore’,
preocupar(se) ’to worry’...

In Fábregas and Marín (2015), OEPVs are analyzed as stative causative structures
with a causative projection on top of a stative one that is interpreted as a result, i.e.
essentially my structure for stative quedarse in (23b). I provide an example of their
proposal in (27). Although none of these authors are explicit about the syntax of the
se-version of these verbs, I assume that both variants are derivationally related: the
intransitive version of OEPVs involves copies of the single argument in two subject
positions, (Spec,initP) and (Spec,resP), thus providing a context for the appearance
of se. I provide an example in (28).

(‘Pedro became thin with the intention of having better health.’)

Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 13

(27) a. La conferencia aburrió a María.

the conference bored dom María
‘The conference bored María.’
b. [ 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑃 La conferencia [ 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 ′ aburrió [𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑃 a María [𝑟 𝑒𝑠′ aburrió ]]]]
(28) a. María se aburrió.
María refl got.bored
‘María got bored.’
b. [ 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑃 María [𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 ′ se aburrió [𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑃 María [𝑟 𝑒𝑠′ aburrió ]]]]
There is a difference between stative quedarse and OEPVs, however: OEPVs
with se also have a transitive variant (e.g. (27a) and (28a)), but quedarse does
not. In this respect, quedarse behaves like so-called inherently reflexive verbs like
arrepentirse ‘to regret’, desinteresarse ‘to have lack of interest’, ensimismarse ‘to be
lost in thought’ and so on. I assume that stative quedarse, just like those verbs, is
lexically specified for a reflexive structure. The lexical entry of quedarse should then
be as in (29), which captures both the se-less and change-of-state versions of quedar:
minimally, quedar lexicalizes a res head. It may also lexicalize either init (stative
quedarse) or proc (change-of-state quedarse), but if it does, the subject position of
initP/procP and resP must be occupied by the same argument, which is represented
with a subscript i in the eventive labels in (29).
(29) quedar(se): [(init𝑖 /proc𝑖 ),res𝑖 ]
Providing support for the complex structure of stative quedarse, beyond the log-
ical event structure interpretation derived from the framework, is somehow trickier
than with change-of-state quedarse. For instance, the scope ambiguity test with
almost is not valid for stative quedarse, given that almost is also sensitive to the
temporal sequencing of the subevents: whereas in change-of-state quedarse there is
a sequencing between the process event and the result state that favors the ambi-
guity, in the case of stative quedarse both eventualities are temporally coextensive
(i.e. the caused state holds for as long as the causer maintains it), and hence the
ambiguity is vacuous. A similar problem holds for the test with the adverb again,
since it is also sensitive to temporal sequencing. However, there are different scope
effects with dative applicative arguments in anticausative contexts with se that sup-
port our structure for stative quedarse. I follow authors like Cuervo (2003), Schäfer
(2008) and Fernández-Soriano and Mendikoetxea (2011) in that there are two kinds
of applicative arguments with distinct interpretations depending on the attachment
height of the Applicative Phrase (ApplP) that introduces them in the articulated VP
structure. The two types are presented below:
1. High ApplP: it takes a vP complement (procP, in our system) and its subject can
be interpreted as an accidental or unintentional causer. An example is given in
(30).
(30) a. A María se le rompió un plato.
dat María refl her.dat broke a glass
14 Alfredo García-Pardo

Reading: A glass broke, and María accidentally caused it.

b. ApplP > procP
2. Affected ApplP: its complement is a phrase that denotes a result state (a stative
root in some accounts, resP in our account). Its subject can be interpreted as a
beneficiary or maleficiary of the eventuality described. I provide an example in
(31).
(31) a. A Pedro se le nubló el día.
dat Pedro refl him.dat got.cloudy the day
Reading: The day got cloudy, and Pedro was affected by it.
b. ApplP > resP
With respect to our proposal for quedarse, this typology predicts that quedarse
can only have Affected Applicatives, which take resP as a complement, but not
High Applicatives, which take procP as a complement, since procP is absent in
stative quedarse. The prediction is borne out, as we can see in (32). Change-of-state
quedarse, on the other hand, is predicted to have both readings available, given that
it is composed of both procP and resP. Again, the prediction is correct, as shown in
(33).
(32) a. A María se le quedó el hijo despierto toda la noche.
dat María refl her.dat stayed the son awake all the night
1. Affected reading: María’s son stayed awake all night, and María was
affected by it.
2. Accidental causer reading: Unavailable (María accidentally brought
about that her son stayed awake all night)
b. Affected reading: initP > ApplP > resP
(33) a. A María se le quedó mudo el paciente.
dat María refl her.dat got mute the patient
1. Affected reading: María’s patient became mute, and María was af-
fected by it.
2. Accidental causer reading: María accidentally brought about that her
patient became mute (e.g. by a botched operation).
b. Affected reading: procP > ApplP > resP
c. Accidental causer reading: ApplP > procP > resP

3.4 Poner(se)

Poner(se), as we saw in Section 2, does not appear in as many syntactico-

aspectual configurations as quedar(se). This verb denotes aspectually a change-of-
state verb and, like many other change-of-state verbs, it participates in the transitive-
unaccusative alternation. Thus, poner(se) must lexicalize minimally proc and res,
Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 15

and it may optionally appear with init, in which case we have a transitive structure.
The proposed lexical entry is given in (34), and examples of the unaccusative and
transitive version are given in (35) and (36), respectively.
(34) poner(se): [(init),proc𝑖 ,res𝑖 ]
(35) a. Pedro se puso nervioso.
Pedro refl put nervous
‘Pedro got nervous.’
b. procP

DP proc’

Pedro
proc resP
se puso
DP res’

Pedro res AP
puso
nervioso
(36) a. María puso a Pedro nervioso.
María put dom Pedro nervous
‘María made Pedro nervous.’
b. initP

DP init’

María
init procP
puso
DP proc’

a Pedro
proc resP
puso
DP res’

a Pedro res AP
puso
nervioso
The syntactic structures of change-of-state ponerse and quedarse are then identi-
cal, built with procP and resP. Like change-of-state quedarse, ponerse shows scope
ambiguity with adverbs like almost and again, as we can see in (37) and (38), re-
spectively. Ponerse, as expected, also shows ambiguity in terms of the interpretation
of applicative arguments (e.g. (39)).
16 Alfredo García-Pardo

(37) La comida casi se puso mala.

the food almost refl bad
‘The food almost went bad.’

1. almost > procP: The food almost began to go bad, but it didn’t at the end
(e.g. because I remembered to put it in the fridge).
2. procP > almost > resP: The food began going bad (e.g. it started to show
signs of decay) and it got close to becoming completely bad.

(38) La pantalla se puso negra otra vez.

the screen refl put black other time
‘The screen went black again.’

1. again > procP: The screen underwent the event of turning black twice.
2. procP > again > resP: The state of the screen being black came to hold
twice (no implications of there being a change of state the first time).

(39) a. A María se le puso negra la salsa.

dat María refl her.dat put black the sauce
1. Affected reading: María’s sauce turned black (e.g. from overexposure
to air), and María was affected by it.
2. Accidental causer reading: María accidentally caused the sauce to
turn black (e.g. by overcooking it).
b. Affected reading: procP > ApplP > resP
Accidental causer reading: ApplP > procP > resP

3.5 Quedar + participles

As we mentioned in Section 2, quedar may appear with passive participles, in which

case we cannot have se (see (9), repeated below). Poner(se) is also impossible with
passive participles (e.g. (40)).
(9) a. La explicación (*se) quedó cuidadosamente aclarada (por las
the explanation (*refl stayed carefully clarified (by the
autoridades).
authorities
‘The explanation became carefully clarified by the authorities.’
b. Los alimentos (*se) quedaron cuidadosamente limpiados.
the food (*refl stayed carefully cleaned
‘The food got carefully washed.’ (Adapted from Demonte and Masullo
1999:2512)
(40) *El museo (se) puso inaugurado por el alcalde.
*the museum (refl put inaugurated by the mayor
Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 17

(‘The museum became inaugurated by the mayor.’)

Why are passive participles only possible with se-less quedar? I suggest that the
restriction is due to the incompatibility of the argument structure of the passive
participle and that of the se versions of quedarse and ponerse. Passive participles,
as is known, have two crucial properties (Baker et al. 1989): i) they have an implicit
external argument (which may be overtly expressed by means of a by-phrase ); ii)
the external argument is referentially disjoint from the internal argument, i.e. passive
participles cannot be reflexive structures. Evidence for the existence of an implicit
external argument is the possibility of having purpose clauses and agent-oriented
adverbs (e.g. (41a)) and evidence for the impossibility of a reflexive configuration
for passive participles is shown in (41b), where an explicitly reflexive by-phrase is
out.

(41) a. Las reuniones quedaron prohibidas {para fortalecer al dictador/

the meetings got prohibited to strengthen dom-the dictator
deliberadamente}.
deliberately
‘Meetings got prohibited {to strengthen the dictator/ deliberately}.’
b. Los niños quedaron vestidos {*por sí solos/ por sus padres}.
the kids stayed dressed {*by themselves alone by their parents
(‘The kids got dressed by themselves/ by their parents.’)

Now, if the external argument of the participle is syntactically projected (as

proposed by Baker et al. 1989), the explanation reduces to a minimality effect: the
internal argument of the participle cannot move to the specifier of initP or procP
bypassing the implicit external argument of the participle. I illustrate the deviant
structure in (42b), from (42a).11

(42) a. Pedro (*se) quedó arrestado (por la policía).

Pedro (*refl stayed arrested by the police
‘Pedro got arrested by the police.’
b. *[𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑃/ 𝑝𝑟 𝑜𝑐 𝑃 Pedro [ 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡 ′ / 𝑝𝑟 𝑜𝑐′ se quedó [𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑃 Pedro [𝑟 𝑒𝑠′ quedó [ 𝑃𝑎𝑟 𝑡 𝑃
(External Argument ≠ Pedro) [ 𝑃𝑎𝑟 𝑡 ′ arrestado Pedro ]]]]]]

11 A reviewer points out that it is possible to have a reflexive stative verb (i.e. with se) and a
participial complement, as in (iv) (example from the reviewer).

(iv) Los padres de unos niños se sienten engañados por los grupos antivacunas.
the parents of some kids refl feel cheated by the groups anti-vaccines
‘Some kids’ parents feel cheated by the anti-vaccination groups.’

While I agree this would be a potential counterexample for my theory, I note that the structure
in (41b) is rather exceptional: there are very few inherently reflexive verbs that can take a passive
participal complement whose internal argument is coindexed with the subject of such verb. Only
sentirse ‘feel’ and considerarse ‘consider oneself’ come to mind. I leave aside a deeper study of
the role of se in these specific constructions for future work.
18 Alfredo García-Pardo

An alternative proposal, suggested to me by an anonymous reviewer, would be

that the semantics of change of ponerse and quedarse clash with the semantics of
change of the participle: this is not unlike data like (43), the reviewer notes, where
the verb built can only select an adjective, but not a participle.

(43) The door was built open/ *opened. (From Embick 2004:357)

While I do not disagree with the reviewer that a semantic clash between two
change-of-state configurations could also be at play, it is worth noting that stative
quedarse also rejects passive participles. The participle encerrado ‘locked up’ in
(44a) is ambiguous between an adjectival and a passive participle, and se is optional.
However, when it is disambiguated by the addition of a by-phrase (e.g. (44b)), the se
version is not possible.

(44) a. (Se) quedó encerrado en su celda toda la noche.

(refl stayed locked-up in his cell all the night
‘He stayed locked up in his cell all night.’
b. (*Se) quedó encerrado en su celda por la policía.
(*refl stayed locked-up in his cell by the police
‘He stayed locked up in his cell by the police.’

I will leave the issue of light verbs and participles here, noting that more work
is needed to understand their combinatorial restrictions, which will require a more
thorough characterization of the internal structure of the participles and their com-
patibility with the event structures projected by these light verbs than I can do justice
here.

4 Conclusions

This paper has studied the grammar of the Spanish light verbs poner(se) and
quedar(se) with adjectives, focusing on the effects that se has in their argument
structure properties and their aspectual and thematic interpretation. I have proposed
that the common denominator of all these effects with se is a syntactic configura-
tion in which a single argument occupies two different syntactic positions within
the VP. The findings of this research are of relevance both for Hispanic linguis-
tics and for general linguistic theory. For Hispanic linguistics, my proposal derives
straightforwardly the different behavior of se with these light verbs in intransitive
configurations, which had only been dealt with in descriptive terms. More particu-
larly, I have explained why the presence of se allows both for an agentive reading
and a change-of-state interpretation with quedar. I have also shown the different
effects of se in the aspect and argument structure of these light verbs is not essen-
tially different to other lexical verbs in Spanish: poner(se) behaves like verbs that
alternate in transitivity (e.g. romper(se) ‘to break’), whereas quedar(se) behaves like
Light verbs and the syntactic configurations of se 19

optional-se unaccusative verbs (e.g. morir(se) ‘to die’) as well as inherently reflex-
ive verbs (e.g. arrepentirse ‘to regret’). For the general theory, this work represents
further evidence for the view that light verbs and lexical verbs are not grammatically
distinct, in that they instantiate the same structures in the syntax. As such, they show
identical possibilities and restrictions regarding argument structure and aspectual
meaning (Hale and Keyser 2002). The difference would be that the roots that we call
‘light’ are lexico-conceptually impoverished with respect to ‘lexical’ roots, which
carry rich encyclopedic content.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to the audiences of the Workshop on Romance se-si, where

a previous version of this work was presented, for their constructive feedback. I also thank two
anonymous reviewers and María Luisa Zubizarreta for the extensive discussions I had with her on
this topic. Last but not least, thank you to Grant Armstrong and Jon MacDonald for organizing the
workshop and for the relentless effort they have put in making this volume a reality. Errors are my
own.

References

Alexiadou, Artemis, Berit Gehrke, and Florian Schäfer. 2014. The argument structure of adjectival
participles revisited. Lingua 149:118–138.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2015. External Arguments in
Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arad, Maya. 1998. "VP Structure and the Syntax–Lexicon Interface." PhD diss. University College
London.
Arad, Maya. 2002. Universal Features and Language-Particular Morphemes. In Theoretical Ap-
proaches to Universals, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, 15–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Arche, Maria Jesus. 2006. Individuals in Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry
20(2):219–51.
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bybee, Joan and David Eddington. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’.
Language 82(2):323–355.
Camacho, Jose. 2012. Ser and estar: The individual/ Stage level distinction and aspectual predica-
tion. In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, eds. Jose Ignacio Hualde, Antxon Olarrea, and
Erin O’Rourke, 453–476. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In The
Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, eds. Artemis Alexiadou,
Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. "Datives at Large." PhD diss. Massachussets Institute of Technology.
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2014. Alternating unaccusatives and the distribution of roots. Lingua
141:48–70.
Demonte, Violeta, and Masullo, Pascual. 1999. La predicacion: los complementos predicativos.
In Gramatica descriptiva de la lengua espanola, eds. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte,
2461–2523. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry
35(3):355–392.
Fábregas, Antonio, and Rafael Marín. 2015. Deriving individual-level and stage-level psych verbs
in Spanish. The Linguistic Review 32(2):227–275.
20 Alfredo García-Pardo

Fernández-Soriano, Olga, and Amaya Mendikoetxea. 2011. Non-selected dative subjects in anti-
causative constructions. Archivio Glottologico Italiano XCVI:87–128.
Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In
Aspectual Inquiries, eds. Roumyana Slabakova, and Paula Kempchinsky, 95–120. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Hale, Kenneth L., and Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jespersen, Otto. 1965. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VI, Morphology.
London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
27(1):77–138.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, eds. Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf and
Alan C. L. Yu, 385–399. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Luján, Marta. 1981. The Spanish copulas as aspectual indicators. Lingua 54:165–210.
Marin, Rafael. 2000. "El componente aspectual de la predicacion." PhD diss. Universidad Autonoma
de Barcelona.
Marin, Rafael, and Louise McNally. 2011. Inchoativity, change of state and telicity: evidence from
Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(2):467–502.
Marin, Rafael, and Sanchez-Marco, Cristina. 2012. Verbos y nombres psicologicos: juntos y re-
vueltos. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2:91–108.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2000. Relaciones de interficie: los verbos de cambio de estado. Cuadernos
de Linguistica del IUOG 7:125–144.
Morimoto, Yuko, and María Victoria Pavón-Lucero. 2007. Los verbos pseudo-copulativos del
espanol. Madrid: Arco Libros.
Otero, Carlos P. 1999. Pronombres reflexivos y recíprocos. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua
española, eds. Ignacio and Violeta Demonte, 1429–1517. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Porroche, Margarita. 1990. Aspectos de la atribucion en espanol. Zaragoza: Portico.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. "Introducing Arguments." PhD diss. Massachussets Institute of Technology.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. On Stativity and Causation. In Events as Grammatical Objects: The Con-
verging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, eds. Carol Tenny, and James Pustejovsky.
Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The Structure of Stative Verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schafer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sichel, Ivy. 2010. Event Structure Constraints in Nominalization. In The Syntax of Nominalizations
across Languages and Frameworks, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, and Monika Rathert, 159–197.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Teomiro García, Ismael Iván. 2013. Low applicatives and optional se in Spanish non-anticausative
intransitive verbs. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 8: 140–153.
Vivanco, Margot. This volume. Spanish anticausative se and its relation to scales.