9.3. Complex predicates

A complex predicate is a multi-word predicate (see Section 9, "Multi-word predicates") consisting of a semantically empty verb which expresses the grammatical meanings in a sentence, and a noun (frequently denoting an event or a state of affairs) which carries the main lexical meaning of the entire phrase.

A complex predicate forms a single complex lexical unit for which an appropriate synonymous expression can usually be found in the form of a one-word predicate. Cf.:

The existence of an adequate synonymous expression involving a single-word predicate is not however a condition for considering a certain collocation of a semantically empty verb with a meaning-bearing noun to be a complex predicate.

In individual complex predicates we identify

The verbal component of a complex predicate may be nominalised, in which case there is a collocation of two nouns (for example: věnování pozornosti (=paying attention); pozornost věnovaná dětem (=the attention paid to children)).

!!! Nominalisations of complex predicates are not represented in PDT (in the data their complexity is not signalled by a specific functor CPHR)

!!! In PDT it was necessary to represent in particular all complex predicates in constructions with control type 1 (see Section 2.4.4, "Type 1: Infinitive dependent on a verbal control predicate") and complex predicates whose nominal component has some valency modification of its own, the syntactic status of which may result in non-projectivity of the construction (see Section 3.4, "Projectivity of tectogrammatical trees"). The list of complex predicates has therefore been strictly limited by these considerations. We are aware that the resulting annotation certainly does not represent all multi-word predicates which could be considered as complex predicates. It is probable that in PDT further potential complex predicates occur which have so far not been represented as complex predicates.

The sub-type of quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs. The basis of complex predicates is multi-word predicates whose meaning does not contain a modal or phase meaning (cf. examples above). Quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs whose verbal component is formed by a verb other than the verb "být (=to be)" and whose non-verbal component is formed by a noun are also defined and represented as a sub-type of complex predicates (for example: mít schopnost (=to have the ability), dostat chuť (=to get an appetite); see Section 9.2.1, "Quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs"). For the basic type of complex predicates and for the sub-type of quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs the same annotation rules described in this section apply, so the two types are not further distinguished in the text.

9.3.1. Properties of verbal and nominal components of complex predicates

9.3.1.1. Properties of the verbal component of complex predicates

From a semantic standpoint the following properties are characteristic of the verbal component of complex predicates:

  • the verbal component of a complex predicate represents the semantically empty use of a verb which has a meaning of its own when not used in the complex predicate (i.e. in its unmarked function); cf.:

    • dostat knihu (=to get a book)

      = unmarked function of the verb dostat (=to get.)

    • to get an order

      = complex predicate dostat rozkaz (=to get an order)

  • the meaning of the entire complex predicate is determined by the meaning of the nominal component of the complex predicate, not primarily by the meaning of the verb, and the verbal component of the complex predicate in the sentence expresses mainly the grammatical meanings.

  • individual verbs contained in the verbal component of the multi-word predicate are linked to each other by the verbal aspect (dostat (=to get), dostávat (=to get)) and by their synonymy (dostat (=to get), získat (=to acquire)); with quasi-phase verbs (see Section 9.2.1, "Quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs") it is the individual phases of the event that constitutes the link (dostat (=to get), mít (=to have), ztratit (=to lose)).

9.3.1.2. Properties of the nominal component of complex predicates

The following properties are characteristic of the nominal component of complex predicates:

  • the nominal component of a complex predicate is represented in a majority of cases by deverbal nouns, but they may also be non-deverbal nouns; cf.:

    • učinit rozhodnutí, přiznání, pokus, omezení, opatření, kontrolu (=to make a decision, admission, attempt, limitation, precaution, check);

    • mít možnost, povinnost, schopnost, zodpovědnost, právo, šanci, příležitost (=to have the opportunity, obligation, ability, responsibility, right, chance, opportunity).

  • the nominal component consists in the majority of cases of an abstract noun; cases with concrete nouns are as a rule classified as unmarked, semantically non-empty uses of the verb; cf.:

    • mít auto.PAT (=to have a car),

    • mít možnost.CPHR (=to have an opportunity).

    It is however necessary to consider whether the noun, which is primarily abstract, thus with the potential to form a complex predicate, is an abstract or concrete noun in a given clause. Cf.:

    • V nejbližší době se ale bude údajně bourat zděná garáž, která nemá stavební povolení.PAT (=But in the very near future, apparently, the brick-built garage, which does not have planning permission, will be demolished.)

      Mít povolení (=to have permission) in the meaning of "dovolit (=to allow)" is a complex predicate, but in this case the meaning is different; the sentence does not mean that "the garage would not be allowed to be built", but rather that "no document exists to justify its existence".

    • Nájemce může podle svých požadavků dostat nabídku.CPHR i po telefonu, popřípadě navštívit kancelář společnosti a nabídky.PAT dostane vytištěné. (=According to his requirements, the tenant can also get an offer over the telephone, or visit the company's office and get offers in printed form, as the case may be.)

      Dostat nabídku (=to get an offer) in the meaning of "nabídnout (=to offer)" is a complex predicate, but in the second part of the sentence the collocation does not have this meaning; clearly, a physical document is involved.

  • nouns forming components of complex predicates frequently belong to some semantic class; for example:

    • emotional states: důvěra (=trust), dojem (=impression), rozčarování (=disappointment), soustrast (=sympathy), nadšení (=delight);

  • nouns forming components of complex predicates, as a rule, form synonym sets, less frequently also antonym sets; cf.:

    • kontakt (=contact), spojení (=union), styk (=connection), vztah (=relationship);

    • dohoda (=agreement), smlouva (=contract), kontrakt (=contract);

    • pokyn (=order), příkaz (=instruction), rozkaz (=command);

    • souhlas (=agreement), svolení (=consent);

    • pokuta (=fine), sankce (=sanction), trest (=punishment);

    • series of antonyms: milost (=reprieve) vs. trest (=punishment); souhlas (=agreement) vs. zákaz (=prohibition).

  • the nominal component is usually the same for several different verbal components (linked to each other by the verbal aspect, relation of synonymy, and in the case of quasi-phase verbs by the fact they represent different phases of the event); cf.:

    • dostat chuť (=to get an appetite),

    • mít chuť (=to have an appetite),

    • ztratit chuť (=to lose the appetite).

  • the nominal component of a complex predicate can take the following forms:

    • non-prepositional accusative (in the majority of cases):

      • mít potíž (=to have difficulty).

    • nominative:

      • padlo rozhodnutí (=a decision was made).

    • non-prepositional instrumental:

      • hořet nenávistí (=to burn with hatred).

    • non-prepositional genitive:

      • pozbýt vtipnosti (=to lose wittiness).

    • prepositional phrase:

      • dát se do práce (=to get down to work);

      • přijít o možnost (=to lose the opportunity).

    !!! The combination of a verb with a noun in the dative (propadnout apatii (=to succumb to apathy), podlehnout zmatku (=to fall into disarray)) is not at present represented as a complex predicate.

9.3.2. Basic annotation rules for complex predicates

A complex predicate is represented in the tectogrammatical tree by two nodes: by a node representing the verbal component of the complex predicate and by a node representing the nominal component of the complex predicate.

The node representing the verbal component of the complex predicate is assigned a functor according to the function of the entire complex predicate in the sentence structure.

The node of the dependent nominal component is assigned a special functor CPHR (compound phraseme, abbreviated "component of the complex predicate"), which signals that it is not a modification of the governing verb but only a component of a multi-word predicate (see also Section 3.3, "Multi-word lexical units analysed as such by means of special functors"). The node is represented as a direct daughter node of the verbal component.

Example:

Vyvolala u něho nadšení.CPHR (=She aroused his enthusiasm) Fig. 6.157

Nodes with the functor CPHR are not members of paratactic structures; they are always direct daughter nodes of the nodes for the verbal component. A complex predicate is treated as a single lexical unit, so only entire complex predicates can be co-ordinated on a tectogrammatical level.

On valency frames of complex predicates see Section 9.3.3, "Valency frames of complex predicates", on representation of the valency of complex predicates see Section 9.3.4, "Representation of the valency of complex predicates in the tectogrammatical tree".

Figure 6.157. Complex predicate

Complex predicate

Vyvolala u něho nadšení. (=lit. (She) aroused at him enthusiasm.)

The nominal component of a complex predicate represented by a pronoun. The nominal component of a complex predicate can also be represented at surface level by a pronoun referring to the noun which forms the complex predicate with the given verb. In such a case the functor CPHR is also assigned to the co-referring pronoun. The co-reference relationship also transfers to the pronoun the valency behaviour of the word it refers to. At surface level the valency modification of these co-referred words may then also be expressed. Then, they are represented by nodes which have functors assigned according to the valency frame of the co-referred word and which are dependent on the node for the co-referring pronoun. Cf.:

  • Nejvyšší kontrolní úřad zásadně odmítá obvinění z úniku informací, jež .CPHR (= obvinění) vyslovila na svém středečním zasedání vláda. (=The supreme controlling authority categorically refutes the accusation of an information leak which the government made at its Wednesday session.)

    The pronoun jenž (=which) refers to the noun obvinění (=accusation); vyslovit obvinění (=to make an accusation) is a complex predicate, so the pronoun jenž (=which) is assigned the functor CPHR.

  • Myslím si, že běžné rozhovory, které.CPHR (= rozhovory ) novinář příkladně s politiky.ADDR dělá, by této dodatečné úpravě neměly podléhat. (=I think that the routine discussions, which the journalist is holding with the politicians in an exemplary manner, should not be subject to this additional amendment.)

    The pronoun který (=which) refers to the noun rozhovor (=discussion) with the valency frame: ACT(.2;.u) ?PAT(o+6) ADDR(s+7); dělat rozhovor (=to hold a discussion) is a complex predicate, so the pronoun který (=which) is assigned the functor CPHR. The expression s politiky (=with the politicians) expresses the Addressee of the noun rozhovor (=discussion), and in the tree structure it will be dependent on the pronoun který (=which).

On pronouns representing words with valency see also Section 2.4.3.4, "Pronouns in place of words with valency".

Cases in which the collocation is not a complex predicate. Cases in which a potential nominal component of a complex predicate is a dependent modification of another noun dependent on the potential verbal component are not represented as complex predicates. Cf.:

  • Trochu.PAT problémů.MAT jsme měli s přepisem. (=A few problems were experienced with the transcription.)

    Mít problém (=to have a problem) is a complex predicate, but mít trochu problémů (=to have a few problems) is not represented as a complex predicate and the verb mít (=to have) is assigned a valency frame with a Patient.

  • Uzavřeli tento typ.PAT smlouvy.APP (=They concluded this type of contract)

    Uzavřít smlouvu (=to conclude a contract) is a complex predicate, but uzavřít typ smlouvy (=to conclude a type of contract) is not represented as a complex predicate and the verb uzavřít (=to conclude) is assigned a valency frame with a Patient.

  • Získal jedno.PAT ze základních práv.DIR1 (=He acquired one of the basic rights)

    Získat právo (=to acquire a right) is a complex predicate, but získat jedno z práv (=to acquire one of the rights) is not represented as a complex predicate and the verb získat (=to acquire) is assigned a valency frame with a Patient.

9.3.3. Valency frames of complex predicates

Both the verbal component and the nominal component of the complex predicate can have their own valency. This section describes the specific problems involved in forming valency frames for verbs and nouns involved in complex predicates. The representation of this valency in the tectogrammatical tree is described in Section 9.3.4, "Representation of the valency of complex predicates in the tectogrammatical tree".

9.3.3.1. The valency frame of the verbal component of complex predicates

For the establishment of valency frames for the verbal component of a complex predicate two basic rules are applied:

  • the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the functor CPHR) is recorded as a member of the valency frame, as its valency modification.

    In view of the fact that nouns involved in complex predicates constitute, as a rule, synonym and antonym sets (see Section 9.3.1.2, "Properties of the nominal component of complex predicates"), all complex predicates consisting of a single verb (in the verbal component) and of individual synonyms (or antonyms) are recorded in abbreviated form in a single valency frame. In the surface-form specification of the nominal component of the complex predicate, the set of synonymous (or antonymous) nouns is given first of all in curly brackets and only after this enumeration there follows the record of the forms. The list of lemmas is completed by a comma and three dots, to indicate that the set of permissible lemmas is incomplete, comprising only the representative examples of this class so far collected. The valency frames of complex predicates of the verb učinit (=to perform/do/make) take the following form, for example:

    • ACT(.1) CPHR({dojem,...}.4) ADDR(na +4) (=impression);

    • ACT(.1) CPHR({konec, přítrž,...}.4) ADDR(.3) (=end, stop);

    • ACT(.1) CPHR({závěr, shrnutí...}.4) ORIG(z +2) (=conclusion, summary);

    • ACT(.1) CPHR({ústupek, nabídka,...}.4) ?ADDR(.3) (=concession, offer);

    • ACT(.1) CPHR({rozhodnutí, prohlášení, prověrka, expertíza, kontrola, omezení, oznámení, zátah, pokus, krok, opatření, pokrok,...}.4) (=decision, announcement, verification, expert assessment, check, restriction, announcement, go, attempt, step, precaution, progress,...).

  • in the valency frame of a complex predicate no argument shifting takes place.

    Valency frames of complex predicates are the only case of valency frames where the principle of argument shifting (described in Section 2.1.4, "Criteria for determining the type of argument (the principle of shifting)") is not adhered to in the record. The valency frame of a verb involved in a complex predicate is always assessed against the background of the valency frame for the unmarked use of this verb. This frame is constituted according to the rules described in Section 2, "Valency", including the rules regarding the shifting. In the case of a complex predicate one valency position (Actor or Patient) of this valency frame for the unmarked use of the verb becomes its nominal component and in the valency frame of the complex predicate it is assigned the functor CPHR. A new implementation of the principle of shifting (actually, its doubling) would blur the relationships between equivalent valency positions in the two valency frames. Cf.:

    • Vedoucí .ACT dal podřízenému .ADDR výplatu.PAT (=The manager gave his subordinate his wages.)

      The valency frame for one of the meanings of the predicate dát (=to give):

      ACT(.1) PAT(.4) ADDR(.3).

    • Vedoucí.ACT dal )podřízenému .ADDR příkaz .CPHR přijít. (=The manager gave his subordinate the order to come.)

      The valency frame of the complex predicate dát příkaz (=to give an order):

      ACT(.1) CPHR({pověření, podpora, souhlas, zpráva, impuls, odpověď, možnost, příkaz, naděje, popud, příčina, právo, příležitost, signál, šance,...}.4) ADDR(.3). (=trust, support, agreement, message, impetus, reply, opportunity, order, hope, stimulus, cause, right, opportunity, signal, chance,...)

    • Interpret . ACT se zmocnil skladby .PAT velmi bravurně. (=The performer mastered the piece brilliantly.)

      The valency frame for one of the meanings of the predicate zmocnit se (=to master) :

      ACT(.1) PAT(.2).

    • Zmocnil se ho.PAT strach.CPHR (=He was overcome by fear.)

      The valency frame of the complex predicate strach se zmocnil (=fear took charge):

      CPHR({strach, nenávist,...}.1) PAT(.2). (=fear, hatred,...)

    Other valency positions are, in the majority of cases, transferred from the valency frame for the unmarked (semantically non-empty) use to the valency frame of the verbal component of the complex predicate without change. They may, however, undergo modification. From this point of view, further valency modification of the verbal component of complex predicates may be divided between:

9.3.3.1.1. The valency frame of the verbal component of the complex predicate corresponds to the unmarked use of the verb

In the majority of cases it is the case that a verb which is a component of a complex predicate has the same number of valency modifications as the same verb in its unmarked (semantically non-empty) use.

The nominal component of a complex predicate occupies, as a rule, the position of Patient or Actor of the original unmarked use of the verb. Any further valency modifications are as a rule assigned the same functors as under primary semantically non-empty usage. Cf.:

  • Poskytují jim potravu.PAT (=They provide them with meals.)

    The valency frame of the predicate in its unmarked use poskytovat (=to provide):

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4) ADDR(.3,pro +4).

  • Poskytují jim pomoc.CPHR (=They give them assistance.)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate poskytovat pomoc (=to give assistance):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({dotace, informace, příspěvek, léčení, péče, činnost, možnost, ochrana, podpora, pomoc, záruka, rada-1, služba, půjčka, sleva,... }.4) ADDR(.3). (=subsidy, information, contribution, treatment, care, activity, opportunity, protection, support, assistance, guarantee, advice- 1, service, loan, reduction,...)

  • Dostal jsem od otce dárek.PAT (=I got a gift from my father.)

    The valency frame of the predicate in its unmarked use dostat (=to get):

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4,.c) ?ORIG(od +2,z +2).

  • Dostal jsem od otce souhlas.CPHR (=I got my father's consent.)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate dostat souhlas (=to get the consent):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({šance, výpověď, odškodnění, prostor, doporučení, informace, impuls, možnost, nabídka,návrh, odpověď, povolení, pokuta, přednost, příležitost, příslib, přístup, rada, slib, souhlas, ujištění, rozkaz, úkol, zákaz, zpráva,... }.4) ?ORIG(z +2,od +2). (=chance, notice, compensation, space, recommendation, information, impetus, opportunity, offer, proposal, reply, permission, fine, priority, opportunity, pledge, approach, advice, promise, agreement, assurance, order, task, prohibition, message,...)

A further (third) valency modification of the complex predicate. A further (third) valency modification of the verbal component of the complex predicate (in particular, the Addressee or the Origo) is generally expressed in the following forms (these forms apply especially to complex predicates whose nominal component is expressed by a noun in the accusative):

  • dative.

    For example: dát někomu možnost , poskytnout někomu příležitost (=to give somebody an opportunity.).

  • od +2.

    For example: dostat od někoho úkol (=to get a task from somebody), získat od někoho právo (=to get a right from somebody).

  • z +2.

    For example: nabýt z něčeho dojem (=to form an impression of something ), udělat z něčeho závěr (=to derive a conclusion from something).

  • na+4.

    For example: klást na někoho nároky (=to make demands of somebody), obrátit na něco pozornost (=to pay attention to something), uvalit na někoho vazbu (=to impose imprisonment on somebody).

  • v+6 or u +2.

    For example: budit v někom nepříjemný pocit (=to arouse an unpleasant feeling in somebody), vzbuzovat u někoho pochybnosti (=to arouse doubts in somebody).

A dative modification corresponds, as a rule, to the position of the Addressee (=ADDR); the constructions od +2 and z +2 usually express the Origo (ORIG). It may be noted that the complex predicates with valency modification in the form of a non-prepositional dative and with the construction od +2 are a typical example of complex predicates which make it possible to express changes in diathesis: in simplified terms it may be said that whereas complex predicates with a dative modification express active constructions, complex predicates with the construction od +2 may be considered passive expressions of the same construction. Cf.:

  • Otec dal synovi souhlas. (=The father gave his son his consent.)

  • Syn dostal od otce souhlas. (=The son got his father's consent.)

Evidently, the construction na +4 may express a number of semantic-syntactic functions. It is especially common with verbs which have in their unmarked usage an obligatory specification of direction (DIR3) (For example the verbs: klást (=to place), vrhnout (=to cast)). Another typical form of this specification of direction is the construction na +4 (For example: klást něco na stůl (=to place something on the table), klást na někoho těžký pytel (=to place a heavy burden on somebody)). If these verbs are involved in complex predicates, the expression of the specification of direction is no longer possible by means of an adverb (because "the target" of the event is usually animate) and there remains only the construction na +4 (For example: klást na někoho nároky (=to place demands on somebody)). In such cases, therefore, this valency modification of the verbal component of the complex predicate in the form na +4 is assigned the functor ADDR, instead of the original functor DIR3. Cf.:

  • Klade knihu.PAT na stůl, do skříně , všude. DIR3 (=He places the book on the table, in the cupboard, everywhere)

    The valency frame, in the unmarked use of the predicate klást (=to place):

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4) DIR3(*).

  • Klade na firmu.ADDR vysoké nároky.CPHR (=He places great demands on the company)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate klást nároky (=to place demands):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({nárok, požadavek,...}.4) ADDR(na +4). (=demand, requirement,...)

In the case of verbs for which various forms of specification of direction are also possible within the framework of a complex predicate, the third valency modification retains the functor DIR3. Cf.:

  • Dal květiny.PAT do vázy.DIR3 (=He put the flowers in the vase)

    The valency frame, in the unmarked use of the predicate dát (=to put):

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4) DIR3(*).

  • Dal informaci.CPHR na úřad .DIR3, na odiv.DIR3, k dispozici. DIR3 (=He gave information to the office, for show, (placed it) at the disposal)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate dát informaci (=to give information):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({důkaz, informace, návrh, oznámení, podnět, stížnost, zpráva, žádost, žaloba,...}.4) DIR3(*). (=proof, information, proposal, announcement, stimulus, complaint, message, application, complaint,...)

The approach is similar for verbs that in their unmarked usage frequently exhibit a specification of place with the functor LOC; as a component of complex predicates they then require a valency modification, particularly in the form v +6 or u +2. Evidently, however, an adverbial form may also occur, and so also in the valency frame of the complex predicate the functor LOC is retained for the third valency modification. Cf.:

  • Probudili v něm.LOC skutečného vůdce.PAT (=They awoke in him a true leader)

    The valency frame for the unmarked usage of the predicate probudit (=to awake):

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4) LOC(*).

  • Probudili v nich.LOC zájem.CPHR o studium. (=They aroused in them interest in studying.)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate probudit zájem (=to arouse interest):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({dojem, nostalgie, pocit, pohoršení, povaha, touha, zájem,... }.4) LOC(*). (=impression, nostalgia, feeling, offence, character, desire, interest,...)

9.3.3.1.2. Changes in the valency frame of the verbal component of a complex predicate as against unmarked usage of the verb

The valency behaviour of a number of verbs changes when they are used as components of a complex predicate. With respect to their unmarked (semantically non-empty) use these verbs either acquire or lose certain valency modifications.

Acquisition of new valency modifications by contrast with the unmarked use of the verb. Certain verbs which are semantically empty as components of complex predicates may also acquire (apart from the obligatory valency for the nominal component with the functor CPHR, usually in the form of a non-prepositional accusative) certain further valency modifications, without there being any justification for this modification in the valency of the relevant verb in its unmarked usage.

These new modifications are explained by analogy with semantically similar predicates which have them. Frequently it is indeed a case of analogy with a corresponding synonymous simple predicate, but evidently it can sometimes be a case of analogy with the valency of another complex predicate.

New valency modifications are acquired, for example, as a component of complex predicates, by the verbs: dělat (=to do), udělat (=to do), činit (=to do), učinit (=to do), tvořit (=to create), vytvořit (=to create), položit (=to place), klást (=to place), vyjádřit (=to express). Cf.:

  • Udělal tuto část diplomové práce.PAT (=He did this part of his dissertation)

    The valency frame of the predicate udělat (=to do) in its unmarked usage:

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4).

  • Udělal na mě.ADDR dojem.CPHR (=He made an impression on me)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate udělat dojem (=to make an impression):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({dojem,...}.4) ADDR(na+4). (=impression,...)

    The prepositional phrase na +4 evidently came into being by analogy with the valency of the simple synonymous predicate působit na někoho dojmem (=to make an impression on somebody) or zapůsobit na někoho (=to have an effect on somebody).

  • Udělal konec.CPHR všem nadějím.ADDR (=He put an end to all hopes)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate udělat konec (=to put an end):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({konec, přítrž,...}.4) ADDR(.3) (=end, stop,...)

    The dative modification evidently came into being by analogy with the valency of the simple synonymous predicate zabránit čemu (=to prevent something).

  • Tato hodnota vyjadřuje spotřebu.PAT za rok. (=This value expresses consumption per annum.)

    The valency frame of the unmarked usage of the predicate vyjádřit (=to express):

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4).

  • Vyjádřil rodičům.ADDR úctu.CPHR (=He expressed respect for his parents)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate vyjádřit úctu (=to express respect):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({dík, důvěra, soustrast, úcta, uznání, podpora, sympatie, preference,...}.4) ADDR(.3). (=thanks, trust, sympathy, respect, recognition, support, sympathy, preference,...)

    The dative modification evidently came into being by analogy with the valency of the verb projevit (=to demonstrate), which occurs in semantically similar complex predicates: projevit někomu úctu (=to show somebody respect) (also the valency of the predicates: vážit si koho / čeho (=to respect somebody / something), uctívat koho / co (=to adore somebody / something).

The loss of valency modifications by contrast with a verb in its unmarked usage. Some verbs may on the contrary lose the valency typical of their unmarked usage. Cf.:

  • Podal kolegovi.ADDR šroubovák.PAT (=He handed his colleague a screwdriver)

    The valency frame of a predicate podat (=to hand) in its unmarked usage:

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4) ADDR(.3).

  • Podává špičkové výkony.CPHR (=He delivers top performances)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate podat výkon (=to deliver a performance):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({výkon,...}.4). (=performance,...)

    The valency modification with the functor ADDR is missing here.

  • Dostal od babičky.ORIG dárek.PAT (=He got a gift from his grandmother)

    The valency frame of the predicate dostat (=to get) in its unmarked use:

    ACT(.1) PAT(.4,.c) ?ORIG(od +2,z +2).

  • Dostal nápad.CPHR odejít z vojny. (=He got the idea of leaving the army.)

    The valency frame of the complex predicate dostat nápad (=to get the idea):

    ACT(.1) CPHR({chuť, nápad,...}.4). (=appetite, idea,...)

    The valency modification with the functor ORIG is missing here.

Acquisition and loss of valency modifications in complex predicates on the basis of analogy with simple predicates is a further reason to treat the entire combinations of verbal and nominal components as a single (complex) predicate, even though certain other criteria may not be fully satisfied.

9.3.3.2. Valency frame of the nominal component of complex predicates

Both deverbal and non-deverbal nouns may have a valency in complex predicates. Nouns which have no valency are also found in complex predicates.

No special valency frame is assumed for a noun functioning as a component of a complex predicate. The nominal component carries the meaning of the complex predicate, the noun being included in the complex predicate with its "full" meaning (unlike the verb), and thus it also has an unimpoverished valency frame.

In the majority of cases it is therefore the rule that a noun which is a component of a complex predicate has the same number and the same forms of valency modifications as the same noun used independently with the same meaning, outside the complex predicate (on the valency of nouns in general, see Section 2.3.2, "Valency of nouns"). However, it is precisely due to its function as the nominal component of the complex predicate that a noun acquires a series of valency modifications, and possibly certain of their forms. This is because the valency of the verbal component of the complex predicate may affect the valency behaviour of the nominal component. The noun may then also exhibit these modifications and these new forms acquired under the influence of the valency effect of the verbal component when used outside the complex predicate. Explanations of certain valency modifications and atypical forms (particularly in non-deverbal nouns) are introduced in this section.

!!! For all nouns functioning as components of complex predicates (i.e. evaluated in the tectogrammatical tree by the functor CPHR), a valency frame has been constituted in the valency lexicon. For nouns which are included in complex predicates, but have no valency, the valency frame EMPTY has been constituted in the valency lexicon (see also Section 2.2.4, "Valency lexicon").

9.3.3.2.1. The Actor of the nominal component of complex predicates

The presence of an Actor as a valency modification may be controversial in the case of a number of nouns (particularly with non-deverbal nouns), above all because this modification is expressed at surface level only as an exception. It has been shown, however, that through its occurrence as the nominal component of the complex predicate, or in combination with a certain verb, a noun acquires a valency modification with the meaning of the functor ACT .

The fact that expressing the Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate is redundant at surface level results from the identity of that Actor with the Actor of the verbal component. In certain cases the Actor cannot be expressed at all with the nominal component. However, there also exist cases of complex predicates in which it is possible to express the Actor in the nominal component, despite the fact that it is identical with the Actor of the verbal component, most frequently by means of the possessive pronoun svůj (=one's own). Cf.:

  • Jan dostal strach.CPHR (=Jan took fright)

    One cannot say: *Jan dostal Janův (=svůj) strach (=*John took John's (=his own) fright).

  • Petr Karlovi znovu položil svoji.ACT otázku.CPHR (=Peter again put his question to Charles)

The possibility of expressing the Actor by the possessive pronoun svůj (=one's own) can also be observed in complex predicates formed by a verb and a non-deverbal noun, despite the fact that in the case of these nouns one does not commonly speak of valency modification with the meaning of Actor. As a rule, reference books of syntax introduce only their own valency modifications, which we most frequently assign the functor PAT (for example: alternativa čeho / čemu / k čemu.PAT (=alternative to what), varianta čeho.PAT (=variant of what), cesta k řešení.PAT (=the way to a solution), povinnost přijít.PAT včas (=the obligation to come on time), právo volit.PAT (=the right to vote)). Cf.:

  • Petrovi to otevřelo (jeho.ACT) cestu.CPHR ke studiu. (=For Peter it opened his way to studying.)

  • Petr má (svoji.ACT) zvláštní strategii.CPHR (=Peter has his own unusual strategy).

  • Petr má (svoji.ACT) povinnost .CPHR přijít včas (=Peter has his obligation to turn up on time).

  • Petr má (svoje.ACT) právo .CPHR volit. (=Peter has his right to vote.)

Modifications with the functor ACT are also seen in cases of non-deverbal nouns which have become independent of the verbal component of their complex predicate and occur in the text independently, externally to the complex predicate (this acquisition of independence by the noun may also be interpreted as a nominalisation of the relevant complex predicate). Cf.:

  • Petrova.ACT strategie je opravdu zvláštní. (=Peter's strategy really is unusual.)

    The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun strategie (=strategy):

    ACT(.2;.u) ?PAT(.2,.u).

  • Petrovou.ACT povinností je přijít včas. (=Peter's obligation is to turn up on time)

    The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun povinnost (=obligation):

    ACT(.2;.u) PAT(.2,k +3,.f,aby[.v]).

  • Petrovo.ACT právo odvolat se mu nikdo nemůže upřít. (=Nobody can deny Peter's right to appeal.)

    The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun právo (=right):

    ACT(.2;.u) PAT(.2,na +4,.f,aby [.v]).

The expression of the Actor in the nominal component of the complex predicate is then normally possible in the case of complex predicates where the Actor of the noun is not referentially identical with the Actor of the verb in the verbal component of the complex predicate. Cf.:

  • Mluvčí.ACT chce obrátit vaši.ACT pozornost.CPHR na osudy oněch lidí. (=The spokesperson wants to draw your attention to the fate of those people.)

    The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun pozornost (=attention):

    ACT(.2;.u) ?PAT(.3;k +3).

  • Vyvolalo to.ACT odpor.CPHR vládních představitelů.ACT (=It evoked the opposition of the government's representatives)

    The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun odpor (=opposition):

    ACT(.2;.u) PAT(k +3,proti +3).

On the identity of the valency modifications of the verbal and nominal components of the complex predicate see Section 9.3.4.2, "Sharing of valency modifications between the verbal and nominal components (quasi-control)".

9.3.3.2.2. Valency modifications of the nominal component of the complex predicate (other than the Actor)

Valency modification of the nominal component of the complex predicate (other than the Actor; on the Actor see Section 9.3.3.2.1, "The Actor of the nominal component of complex predicates") may be expressed by a great variety of forms:

  • non-prepositional case (particularly the genitive, but also the dative and instrumental).

    For example: provést opravu.CPHR něčeho (=to carry out a repair on something), budit pocit.CPHR něčeho (=to arouse a feeling of something), vyjádřit pohrdání.CPHR něčím (=to express contempt for something), vydat pokyn.CPHR někomu (=to issue a command to somebody), dělat ústupky .CPHR někomu (=to make concessions to somebody).

  • prepositional phrase.

    For example: mít rozhovor.CPHR s někým (=to have a conversation with somebody), vést debatu.CPHR o něčem (=to hold a debate about something), podat námitku.CPHR vůči někomu (=to make an objection to somebody), podniknout krok.CPHR k čemu (=to undertake a step towards something), vzbudit zájem.CPHR o něco (=to arouse interest in something), vynést soud.CPHR nad někým (=to pass sentence on somebody), vytvářet tlak.CPHR na někoho (=to exert pressure on somebody), vyvíjet nátlak.CPHR na někoho (=to exert pressure on somebody), mít obavu.CPHR o někoho (=to be concerned for somebody), mít vztah.CPHR k někomu (=to have a relationship with somebody), projevit souhlas.CPHR s někým (=to express agreement with somebody), provést útok.CPHR na někoho (=to carry out an attack against somebody), brát ohledy.CPHR na něco (=to take account of something), dát se do práce.CPHR na něčem (=to set to work on something), dát přednost.CPHR někomu před něčím (=to give priority to somebody over something).

  • infinitive or dependent clause.

    For example: vyslovit názor .CPHR že... (=to express the opinion that...), vydat pokyn (=to issue a command).CPHR udělat něco (=to do something), mít možnost / šanci / příležitost .CPHR něco udělat (=to have the opportunity / chance to do something).

Requiring the infinitive construction is typical of nouns occurring in complex predicates which are synonymous with modal and phase verbs (in quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs; see Section 9.2.1, "Quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs"). In the case of complex predicates, various prepositional phrases are in some cases also possible alternatives to the infinitive (for example: na +4 or k +3, not possible with one-word modal and phase verbs). Cf.:

  • Petr má šanci.CPHR postoupit do finále / na postup do finále. (=Peter has a chance to reach the final / of reaching the final.)

    Valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun šance (=chance):

    ACT(.2;.u) PAT(k +3,na +4,.f,že that)[.v]).

Also nouns which occur independently in a text (outside a complex predicate) may have infinitival modifications. Cf.:

  • Petrova.ACT šance postoupit .PAT do finále tím výrazně vzrostla. (=Peter's chances of reaching the final were increased significantly by this.)

  • Petrovo.ACT právo odvolat se .PAT mu nikdo nemůže upřít.(=Nobody can deny Peter's right to appeal.)

9.3.3.2.3. Borrowing of valency modification forms from the verbal component of a complex predicate

The valency frames of nouns occurring in complex predicates always incorporate all possible forms of a given modification found in PDT. The explanations of certain forms of valency modifications of nouns (in connection with their occurrence in the nominal component of complex predicates) are given in the following paragraphs.

We consider that a noun occurring in a complex predicate as its nominal component may borrow a form for the expression of its valency modification which is used to express a referentially identical valency modification of the verbal component (the noun itself would not require such a (form of) modification; in the case of deverbal nouns this form of modification is not present even with the base verb). The given valency modification may then also be expressed in this borrowed form when the noun occurs outside the complex predicate (within the complex predicate the given valency modification is interpreted as dependent on the verbal component).

Nouns in the nominal component of the complex predicate borrow especially the forms of third valency modifications of verbs described in Section 9.3.3.1.1, "The valency frame of the verbal component of the complex predicate corresponds to the unmarked use of the verb". In particular, these are the following three forms:

  • the dative.

    The influence of the dative form of the third valency modification of the verbal component of the complex predicate on the valency behaviour of the nominal component of the given complex predicate is most evident in constructions with deverbal nouns with the relevant valency modification expressed by a non-prepositional accusative (for example in the case of the nouns: podpora (=support), pochvala (=praise)) or a non-prepositional genitive (for example in the case of the nouns: otázka (=question), dotaz (=question)).

    On the basis of regular shifts in the surface realisation of valency modifications of deverbal nouns the accusative form should change to the genitive and the genitive form should not change. However, certain of the above mentioned nouns avoid the expression of the relevant valency modification by means of the genitive (for example: *otázka někoho.ADDR (=*the question of somebody)); instead, dative forms occur. And in the case of certain nouns both forms are possible - that is both the genitive and the dative. Cf.:

    • Pochválili Zemana .PAT za výstižná slova. (=They praised Zeman for his telling words.)

      The valency frame for one of the meanings of the predicate pochválit (=to praise):

      ACT(.1) PAT(.4;že [.v];.c;.s).

    • pochvala Zemana.PAT (=praise of Zeman) or pochvala Zemanovi.PAT za výstižná slova. (=praise to Zeman for his telling words.)

      The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun pochvala (=praise):

      ACT(.2;od +2;.u) PAT(.2;.3).

    • Otázali se Komerční banky.ADDR, zda to bude preferovat. (=They asked The Commercial Bank whether they would prefer this.)

      The valency frame for one of the meanings of the predicate otázat se (=to ask):

      ACT(.1) PAT(na+4;zda [.v];jestli [.v];.c;.s) ADDR(.2).

    • otázka Komerční bance.ADDR, zda to bude preferovat (=the question to the Commercial Bank as to whether they would prefer this)

      The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun otázka (=the question):

      ACT(.2;.u) PAT(o+6, po+6,zda [.v],jestli [.v],.c,.s) ADDR(.3).

    If we wonder what the origin of a dative modification is, the influence of the dative form of the third valency modification of the verbal component of a complex predicate is one possible explanation; for example:

    • Udělil pochvalu někomu.ADDR (=He bestowed praise on somebody)

      The valency frame of the complex predicate udělit pochvalu (=to bestow praise):

      ACT(.1) CPHR({cena-1, pochvala, pokuta,rada-1 ,souhlas ,uznání,...}.4) ADDR(.3). (=value, praise, fine, advice, consent, recognition, ...)

    • Položil otázku někomu.ADDR (=He put a question to somebody)

      The valency frame of the complex predicate položit otázku (=to put a question) :

      ACT(.1) CPHR({dotaz, otázka,...}.4) ?ADDR(.3). ( =question,...)

    In the case of certain non-deverbal nouns we can also observe a process of borrowing of a dative valency modification from the verbal component of the relevant complex predicate. These are in particular non-deverbal nouns occurring in complex predicates with the verbs dát (=to give) or udělit (=to confer) (=for example: cena (=a prize), políček (=a slap), pokuta (=a fine)). Cf.:

    • políček polskému papeži .PAT od polského parlamentu.ACT (=a slap in the face to the Polish pope by the Polish parliament)

      The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun políček (=slap):

      ACT(.2;od +2;.u) PAT(.3).

  • od +2.

    The borrowing of the form od +2 from the verbal component of complex predicates is very common, despite the fact that there are few verbs with this construction (for example: dostat (=to get) and získat (=to acquire)). Whereas in the case of a verb a valency modification with this construction is usually assigned the functor ORIG, in the case of deverbal nouns this modification is usually assigned the functor ACT. And in the case of non-deverbal nouns this modification is assigned the functor ACT, by analogy with deverbal nouns. Cf.:

    • Dostal slib.PAT od ministra.ORIG (=He got a promise from the minister)

      The valency frame of the complex predicate dostat slib (=to get a promise):

      ACT(.1) CPHR({šance, výpověď, odškodnění, prostor, doporučení, informace, impuls, možnost, nabídka, návrh, odpověď, povolení, pokuta, přednost, příležitost, příslib, přístup, rada, slib, souhlas, ujištění, rozkaz, úkol, zákaz, zpráva,...}.4) ?ORIG(z+2 ;od +2). (=chance, notice, compensation, space, recommendation, information, impetus, opportunity, offer, proposal, reply, permission, fine, priority, opportunity, pledge, approach, advice, promise, agreement, assurance, order, task, prohibition, message,...)

    • slib od ministra.ACT (=a promise from the minister)

      = ministr.ACT slíbil. (=the minister promised.)

      The valency frame for one of the meanings of the noun slib (=promise):

      ACT(.2;od +2) PAT(.2;.f;že [.v]) ?ADDR(.3).

  • na+4.

    The form na+4 is frequently a verbal form, but in exceptional cases it may be a valency modification of the noun itself (for example: důraz na něco (=emphasis on something), konkurz na něco (=competition for something)). It is also questionable in some cases whether this is still a verbal valency or whether it becomes a valency modification of the noun adopted from the verb (cf. for example: nároky (kladené) na firmu (=demands (placed) on the company) vs. nároky na vybavení (=claims to equipment), similarly požadavky (kladené) na hráče (=requirements (placed) on players) v. požadavky na zdravotní nezávadnost (=requirements of perfect health)).

NB! In some cases, the valency of the verbal component of a complex predicate merely appears to influence the valency behaviour of the nominal component. Cf.:

  • Poskytl Janovi péči.CPHR (=He provided John with care)

    In the example shown, it might appear that under the influence of verbal valency the noun péče (=care) may, as far as its valency modification is concerned, adopt the dative form. However, when péče (=care) is a self-standing noun, its valency modification is expressed only by the form o+4. We do not, therefore, anticipate the dative form in the valency frame of the noun péče (=care). In the example shown, the dative modification is a valency modification of the verb (not of the noun).

9.3.4. Representation of the valency of complex predicates in the tectogrammatical tree

This section describes how the valency of both parts of the complex predicate is represented in the tectogrammatical trees (for basic rules, see Section 2.4, "Representing valency in the tectogrammatical trees").

The nominal and verbal components of the complex predicate are assigned the appropriate valency frame from the valency lexicon. By means of newly established nodes with t-lemma substitutes, those valency modification positions not present at surface level are filled (see rules in Section 12.2, "Ellipsis of the dependent element" and especially here Section 9.3.4.2, "Sharing of valency modifications between the verbal and nominal components (quasi-control)").

Since in practice a complex predicate represents a single lexical unit, specific features appear in the representation of the valency of these predicates; they are described as:

9.3.4.1. Dual function of a valency modification of the complex predicate

Annotators must first of all determine whether a specific valency modification occurring at surface level belongs to the verbal or the nominal part of the complex predicate. In many cases the decision is straightforward:

  • the given valency modification occurs with the given form in the valency frame of only one of the components of the complex predicate. In this case it is represented as dependent on the node for this component.

  • the given valency modification occurs in the valency frames of both components of the complex predicate (a case of a shared modification; see Section 9.3.4.2, "Sharing of valency modifications between the verbal and nominal components (quasi-control)"), but in terms of its form it belongs to one of them only. In this case it is represented as dependent on the node for the component to which it formally belongs.

However, there are problematic cases where the expressed valency modification occurs in the same form in the valency frames of both components of the complex predicate (this is also a case of shared modification, see Section 9.3.4.2, "Sharing of valency modifications between the verbal and nominal components (quasi-control)"). A dual interpretation is most frequently found with valency modification in the dative and in the form od+2. Cf.:

  • Petr dostal od šéfa rozkaz přijít včas. (=Peter got from his boss an order to turn up on time)

    = Petr dostal od šéfa rozkaz od šéfa. (=lit. Peter got from (his) boss (an) order from (his) boss) Cf. Fig. 6.158.

For such cases the following simple convention has temporarily been adopted: valency modifications with dual function are represented as primarily dependent on the node for the verbal component of the complex predicate (cf. Fig. 6.158).

For non-projective structures which may arise in this way, see Section 3.4.4, "Non-projectivities with unclear motivation (constructions with multi-word predicates)". For other cases of dual function of a single modification see Section 11.2, "Dual function of a single modification".

Figure 6.158. Dual function of a valency modification of the complex predicate

Dual function of a valency modification of the complex predicate

Petr dostal od šéfa rozkaz přijít včas. (=lit. Peter got from boss (an) order to_turn_up on_time.)

Cf. also Fig. 6.159 to Fig. 6.165.

9.3.4.2. Sharing of valency modifications between the verbal and nominal components (quasi-control)

Since certain combinations of a verb and a noun (i.e. a certain complex predicate) may be treated semantically as a single lexical unit, there is frequently a referential identity of certain valency modifications of nominal and verbal components of a complex predicate. The nominal and verbal components of the complex predicate share certain valency modifications.

This sharing is represented as quasi-control, as a specific type of grammatical co-reference (see Section 2.5, "Quasi-control").

At surface level, a referentially identical shared valency modification is expressed, as a rule, only once; cf.:

  • Poskytnul Petrovi péči.CPHR (=He provided Peter with care)

    Both the Addressee of the verb poskytovat (=to provide) and the Patient of the noun péče (=care) are one and the same referent (Petr (=Peter)). At surface level this referentially identical shared valency modification is expressed only once (one cannot say: *Poskytl Petrovi péči o něj/o Petra (=*He provided Peter with care for him/for Peter)).

The required form of the shared valency modification may be the same for both components of the complex predicate, or different; cf.:

  • poskytnout Janovi péči.CPHR (=to provide John with care)

    The verb poskytnout (=to provide) requires modification in the dative form (poskytnout Janovi ), the noun péče (=to provide care for John) requires modification in the prepositional form o+4 (péče o Jana (=care for John)). The referentially identical (shared) modification Janovi (=for John) belongs formally to the verbal component of the complex predicate, so it will be dependent on the verbal component.

  • poskytnout Petrovi pomoc.CPHR (=to provide assistance for Peter)

    Both the verb poskytnout (=to provide) and the noun pomoc (=assistance) require modification in the dative form (poskytnout Petrovi (=to provide for Peter) and also pomoc Petrovi (=assistance for Peter)). The referentially identical (shared) modification Petrovi (=for Peter) may formally belong both to the verbal and to the nominal component of the complex predicate. These cases of competition are described in Section 9.3.4.1, "Dual function of a valency modification of the complex predicate".

The semantic-syntactic function of the shared valency modification may also be the same or it may differ. In the majority of complex predicates the valency modifications with the functor ACT are shared (this follows from the frequent possibility of a one-word expression of the complex predicate, see also Section 9.3.3.2.1, "The Actor of the nominal component of complex predicates"). However, also the Addressee of the verbal component and the Actor of the nominal component or the Origo of the verbal component and the Actor of the nominal component may be shared. Cf.:

  • Firma.ACT má plán.CPHR, jak zvýšit zisk. (=The company has a plan for increasing profits.)

    The expressed Actor of the verb mít (=to have) and the unexpressed Actor of the noun plán (=plan) are referentially identical (firma (=company)).

  • Uložili Janovi.ADDR povinnost.CPHR splatit pohledávky. (=They set John the task of paying the claims)

    The expressed Addressee of the verb uložit (=to set) and the unexpressed Actor of the noun povinnost (=task) are referentially identical (=Jan (=John)).

9.3.4.2.1. Representation of quasi-control in complex predicates

Annotators must first of all decide whether the particular shared valency modification occurring at surface level belongs to the verbal or to the nominal component of the complex predicate (on this, see Section 9.3.4.1, "Dual function of a valency modification of the complex predicate").

In place of the shared valency modification which is omitted at surface level (as a rule it is a case of valency modification of the nominal component), a new node is added to the tectogrammatical tree, with the t-lemma substitute #QCor. In addition to the special t-lemma, referential identity is also indicated by the grammatical co-reference relation leading from this newly established node to the node for the second shared valency modification. Cf.:

  • Voják podal {#QCor.ACT} hlášení.CPHR v kasárnách. (=The soldier gave a report at the barracks.)

    The Actor of the governing verb of the complex predicate (the noun voják (=soldier)) is identical with the (unexpressed) Actor of the noun in the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the Actor of the noun hlášení (=report)): the person who gave something and the person who reported were one and the same: voják (=the soldier). Therefore, in place of the unexpressed Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate, a new node with the t-lemma substitute #QCor is added, from which a co-reference relationship leads to the expressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate, to the noun voják (=soldier) (cf. Fig. 6.159).

If the shared referentially identical valency modification is not expressed at surface level at all, it is represented in the nominal component of the complex predicate by a newly established node with the t-lemma #QCor, and in the verbal component the newly established node for this modification has a t-lemma substitute based on the type of elision (for rules see Section 12.2, "Ellipsis of the dependent element"), thus: #Gen, #PersPron, possibly #Unsp; (cf. Fig. 6.160). Cf.:

Petr dostal {#Gen.ORIG} {#QCor.ACT} rozkaz přijít. (=Peter got the order to come.)

Figure 6.159. Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Voják podal hlášení v kasárnách. (=lit. (The) soldier gave (a) report at (the) barracks.)

Figure 6.160. Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Petr dostal rozkaz přijít. (=lit. Peter got (the) order to_come.)

Restrictions on the assignment of the t-lemma #QCor. If the shared valency modification is expressed at surface level and formally evidently belongs to the nominal component of the complex predicate (so the node for the expressed shared valency modification is thus dependent on the node for the nominal component), the node for the unexpressed referentially identical modification is dependent on the node for the verbal component. The assignment of the t-lemma #QCor to the newly established node dependent on a verb is however limited by a number of other annotation rules for t-lemma substitutes for newly established dependent nodes (see in particular Section 12.2, "Ellipsis of the dependent element").

A newly established node for an unexpressed valency modification of the verbal component of a complex predicate, referentially identical with the expressed valency modification of the nominal component, cannot be assigned the t-lemma #QCor (and therefore this type of (shared) referential identity cannot be indicated in the construction) in those cases where the node for this unexpressed referentially identical valency modification of the verbal component of the complex predicate should, according to other annotation rules, have the t-lemma:

  • #Gen

    The expressed modification of the nominal component of the complex predicate is referentially identical with the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate; however, the verb has the form of a reflexive passive and the node for the unexpressed Actor of the verb in the reflexive passive is assigned the t-lemma #Gen (see Section 2.4.1, "General arguments and unspecified Actors"). Cf.:

    • {#Gen.ACT} Přes nedávné příměří se v jižní části Tádžikistánu stále vedou boje.CPHR mezi stoupenci.ACT bývalého prezidenta Rachmana Nabijeva a jeho odpůrci.ACT (=Despite the recent truce, fighting is still continuing in the southern part of Tadzhikistan between supporters of the former president Rachman Nabiyev and his opponents)

      The Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate (stoupenci bývalého prezidenta Rachmana Nabijeva a jeho odpůrci (=supporters of the former president Rachman Nabiyev and his opponents)) is referentially identical with the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component: those who are fighting and those who are carrying on the fighting are the same people. However, in place of the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate a new node with the t-lemma substitute #Gen is added because the verb is formally a reflexive passive.

  • #PersPron or #Unsp

    The expressed modification of the nominal component of the complex predicate is referentially identical with the unexpressed Actor (the subject) of the verbal component of the complex predicate; however, the verb is active and is in a particular form, and the node for the unexpressed Actor-subject of the active verb is assigned the t-lemma #PersPron or #Unsp (see Section 12.2.1, "Ellipsis of an obligatory modification" and Section 2.4.1, "General arguments and unspecified Actors"). Cf.:

    • {#PersPron.ACT} Nese svou.ACT osobní odpovědnost.CPHR (=He bears his own personal responsibility)

      The Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate (svůj (=his own)) is referentially identical with the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component: the person who is responsible and the one who bears this responsibility are one and the same. However, in place of the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate a new node with the t-lemma substitute #PersPron is added because the verb is in the active verb form.

  • #Oblfm

    The expressed modification of the nominal component of the complex predicate is referentially identical with the unexpressed obligatory adjunct (LOC) of the verbal component of the complex predicate. The node for the unexpressed obligatory modification with the functor LOC is assigned the t-lemma #Oblfm, because this t-lemma is uniformly assigned to all unexpressed obligatory adjuncts (see Section 12.2.1.3, "Ellipsis of an obligatory free modification (t-lemma substitutes #Oblfm and #Rcp)"). Cf.:

    • Vyvolalo {#Oblfm.LOC} to nevoli.CPHR britské vlády.ACT (=It evoked the indignation of the British government)

      The Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate (britská vláda (=the British government)) is referentially identical with the unexpressed obligatory place adjunct of the verbal component: the person who is indignant and the one in whom indignation was aroused are one and the same referent. However, in place of the unexpressed obligatory place adjunct of the verbal component of the complex predicate a new node is added with the t-lemma substitute #Oblfm, because obligatory free modifications are assigned this uniform t-lemma.

  • #Cor

    The expressed modification of the nominal component of the complex predicate is referentially identical with the unexpressed valency modification in the position of the subject of the verbal component of the complex predicate; however, this unexpressed subject is in the position of the controllee, so the node has the t-lemma #Cor (see Section 2.4, "Control"). Cf.:

    • Dáváme šance {#Cor.ACT} vyjádřit své.ACT sympatie.CPHR váhavým. (=We are giving the waverers a chance to express their sympathies.)

      The Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate (své (=their)) is referentially identical with the unexpressed Actor-subject of the verbal component: those who have sympathy and those who express it are the same people. However, in place of the unexpressed Actor-subject of the verbal component of the complex predicate a new node is added with the t-lemma substitute #Cor, because here the unexpressed subject is in the position of the controlled element.

The node with the t-lemma #QCor dependent on the verbal component of the complex predicate. The newly established node for the unexpressed valency modification of the verbal component of the complex predicate, referentially identical with the expressed valency modification of the nominal component, is assigned the t-lemma #QCor (and in the construction the type of (shared) referential identity is therefore indicated), particularly in these cases:

  • the verbal component of the complex predicate is in the periphrastic passive and the unexpressed referentially identical modification is the Actor of this verbal component.

    Cf.:

    • {#QCor.ACT} Mezi britskou vládou.ACT a Irskou republikánskou armádou.ACT nebyly před vyhlášením příměří uzavřeny žádné dohody.CPHR (=No agreements were reached between the British government and the Irish Republican Army before the declaration of a truce)

      The Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate (britská vláda a Irská republikánská armáda (=the British government and the Irish Republican Army)) is referentially identical with the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component: those who agreed and those who concluded an agreement are the same people. In place of the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate a new node is added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreference relation leads to the node for the expressed Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate (cf. Fig. 6.161).

  • the unexpressed referentially identical Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate is not in the position of the subject.

    Cf.:

    • To znamená, že {#QCor.ACT} nezaniká nárok.CPHR věřitele .ACT na jeho vymáhání.(=That means that the right of the creditor to demand it does not lapse.)

      The Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate (věřitel (=creditor)) is referentially identical with the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component: the person who has a right and the one whose right has not lapsed, are one and the same. In place of the unexpressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate a new node is added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate.

  • the unexpressed referentially identical modification of the verbal component of the complex predicate is not the same modification as the Actor.

    Cf.:

    • Nedůvěru.CPHR k prezidentovi.PAT projevilo {#QCor.ADDR} 71 procent dotázaných. (=Mistrust towards the president was expressed by 71 per cent of those questioned)

      The Patient of the nominal component of the complex predicate (k prezidentovi (=towards the president)) is referentially identical with the unexpressed Addressee of the verbal component: the person they mistrusted and the one in whom they expressed mistrust are one and the same. In place of the unexpressed Addressee of the verbal component of the complex predicate a new node is added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Patient of the nominal component of the complex predicate.

    • {#QCor.ORIG} Získal souhlas .CPHR všech členů.ACT (=He obtained the agreement of all the members)

      The Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate (všichni členové (=all the members)) is referentially identical with the unexpressed Origo of the verbal component: those who agree and those whose agreement was obtained are the same people. In place of the unexpressed Origo of the verbal component of the complex predicate is added a new node with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which leads the coreferential relationship to the node for the expressed Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate.

Figure 6.161. Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Mezi britskou vládou a Irskou republikánskou armádou nebyly před vyhlášením příměří uzavřeny žádné dohody. (=lit. Between (the) British government and the (Irish) Republican Army were_not before (the) declaration (of a) truce concluded no agreements.)

9.3.4.2.2. Types of quasi-control in complex predicates

So far the following types of sharing of valency modifications have been described:

  • a construction with a complex predicate is synonymous with an active construction (with a one-word predicate):

    • identity of the Actor of the verbal component with the Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate.

      This group includes the majority of complex predicates. It involves, in particular, quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs (for example: mít právo (=to have the right), mít šanci (=to have a chance), zájem (=interest), dostat strach (=to take fright), pozbýt odvahu (=to lose the courage), zaujmout názor (=to adopt a view); see Section 9.2.1, "Quasi-modal and quasi-phase verbs") and also synonymous expression of many other verbs with various meanings (for example: brát ohledy na někoho (=to be considerate towards somebody) = ohlížet se na někoho (= to be considerate towards somebody); činit si nárok (=to make a claim) = nárokovat si (= to claim); dělat přípravy (=to make preparations) = připravovat se (= to prepare oneself); upřít pozornost (=to fix attention); věnovat pozornost / čas (=to devote attention / time)). Cf.:

      • Pavel.ACT {#QCor.ACT} zájem.CPHR o studium (=Paul has an interest in studying).

        The Actor of the governing verb of the complex predicate (the noun Pavel (=Paul)) is identical with the (unexpressed) Actor of the noun in the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the Actor of the noun zájem (=interest)): the person who has something and the one who is interested in studying are one and the same. In place of the unexpressed Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate a new node is therefore added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate, to the noun Pavel (=Paul) (cf. Fig. 6.162).

      A further example:

      Petr.ACT přišel {#QCor.ACT} na nápad.CPHR udělat překvapení. (=Peter had the idea of springing a surprise) Fig. 6.163

    • the identity of the Addressee, or another valency modification of the verbal component (which is not an Actor), with the Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate.

      This group includes for example the complex predicates: dát možnost (=to give an opportunity) (=umožnit) (=to make it possible), ukládat povinnost (=to impose an obligation) (= přikázat) (=to order), vzbudit (=v někom) dojem / zájem (=to arouse (in somebody) an impression / interest). As a rule the Addressee of the governing verb of the complex predicate is identical with the Actor of the noun in the nominal component. Cf.:

      • Předseda uložil zaměstnancům.ADDR {#QCor.ACT} povinnost.CPHR hlásit pozdní příchody. (=The chairman imposed on the employees the obligation to report late arrivals.)

        The Addressee of the governing verb of the complex predicate (the noun zaměstnancům (=employees)) is identical with the (unexpressed) Actor of the noun in the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the Actor of the noun povinnost (=obligation)): the person on whom something was imposed and the one who had some obligation were one and the same: zaměstnanci (=employees). In place of the unexpressed Actor of the nominal component a new node is therefore added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Addressee of the verbal component, to the noun zaměstnancům (=employees) (cf. Fig. 6.164).

    • the identity of the Actor of the verbal component with the Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate and likewise the identity of the Addressee of the verbal component with the Addressee (or, as the case may be, the Patient or other valency modification) of the nominal component of the complex predicate.

      This group includes for example the complex predicates: dát příkaz (=to issue a command) (=přikázat) (=to command), dát pochvalu (=to offer praise) (= pochválit) (=to praise), dát důtku (=to issue a reprimand) (= pokárat) (= to reprimand), dát radu (=to give advice) (= poradit) (= to advise), klást otázku / dotaz (=to put a question) (=ptát se) (=to ask), položit otázku / dotaz (=to put a question) (=zeptat se) (=to ask), poskytnout / poskytovat radu / službu / pomoc (=to provide advice / a service / help) (= poradit / posloužit / pomoci) (=to advise / to serve / to help), udělit pochvalu (=to speak in praise of) (= pochválit) (= to praise), udělit důtku (=to issue a reprimand) (=pokárat) (=to reprimand). Cf.:

      • Pavel.ACT dal Petrovi.ADDR {#QCor.ACT} {#QCor.ADDR} radu.CPHR (=Paul gave Peter advice)

        The Actor of the governing verb of the complex predicate (the noun Pavel (=Paul)) is identical with the (unexpressed) Actor of the noun in the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the Actor of the noun rada (=advice)): the person who gave something and the one who advised were one and the same: Pavel (=Paul). In place of the unexpressed Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate a new node is therefore added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate, to the noun Pavel.

        The Addressee of the governing verb of the complex predicate (the noun Petrovi (=to Peter)) is identical with the (unexpressed) Addressee of the noun in the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the Addressee of the noun rada (=advice)): the person to whom something was given and the one who got advice were one and the same: Petr (=Peter). In place of the unexpressed Addressee of the nominal component of the complex predicate a new node is therefore added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Addressee of the verbal component of the complex predicate, to the noun Petrovi (=to Peter) (cf. Fig. 6.165).

  • the construction with a complex predicate is an expression synonymous with the passive construction (with a one-word predicate):

    • identity of the Actor of the verbal component and the Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate:

      This group includes for example the complex predicates: dostat příležitost (=to get an opportunity), získat možnost (=to obtain an opportunity) (=bylo mu umožněno (=it was made possible for him)). Cf.:

      • Martin.ACT dostal {#QCor.ACT} možnost.CPHR studovat v zahraničí. (=Martin got an opportunity to study abroad.)

        The Actor of the governing verb of the complex predicate (the noun Martin (=Martin)) is identical with the (unexpressed) Actor of the noun in the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the Actor of the noun možnost (=opportunity)): the person who got something and the one who had an opportunity were one and the same: Martin (=Martin). In place of the unexpressed Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate a new node is therefore added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate, to the noun Martin.

    • the identity of the Origo of the verbal component with the Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate and likewise the identity of the Actor of the verbal component with the Addressee (or, as the case may be, the Patient, or another valency modification) of the nominal component of the complex predicate.

      This group includes for example the complex predicates: dostat (od někoho.ORIG) příkaz (=to get an order (from somebody)) (=bylo mu přikázáno (=he was ordered)) , dostat (=od někoho.ORIG) pochvalu (=to get praise (from somebody)) (=být pochválen (=to be praised)), dostat (od někoho.ORIG) důtku (=to get a reprimand (from somebody)) (=být pokárán (=to be reprimanded)). Cf.:

      • Voják.ACT dostal od velitele.ORIG {#QCor.ACT} {#QCor.ADDR} příkaz.CPHR opustit kasárna. (=The soldier got from his commander the order to leave the barracks)

        The Origo of the governing verb of the complex predicate (the noun velitel (=commander)) is identical with the (unexpressed) Actor of the noun in the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the Actor of the noun příkaz (=order)): the person from whom the order comes and the one who ordered were one and the same: velitel (=commander). In place of the unexpressed Actor of the nominal component of the complex predicate a new node is therefore added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Origo of the verbal component of the complex predicate, i.e. to the prepositional phrase od velitele (=from the commander).

        The Actor of the governing verb of the complex predicate (the noun voják (=soldier)) is identical with the (unexpressed) Addressee of the noun in the nominal component of the complex predicate (with the Addressee of the noun příkaz (=order)): the person who got something and the one who was ordered to do something are one and the same: voják (=soldier). In place of the unexpressed Addressee of the nominal component of the complex predicate a new node is therefore added with the t-lemma substitute #QCor, from which the coreferential relationship leads to the node for the expressed Actor of the verbal component of the complex predicate, to the noun voják (=soldier).

Figure 6.162. Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Pavel má zájem o studium. (=lit. Paul has (an) interest in studying.)

Figure 6.163. Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Petr přišel na nápad udělat překvapení. (=lit. Peter came with (the) idea of_springing (a) surprise.)

Figure 6.164. Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Předseda uložil zaměstnancům povinnost hlásit pozdní příchody. (=lit. (The) chairman imposed (on the) employees (the) obligation to_report late arrivals.)

Figure 6.165. Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Representation of shared referentially identical valency modifications

Pavel dal Petrovi radu. (=lit. Paul gave Peter (some) advice)