Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo

Rafael Marín
email: rafael.marin@univ-lille.fr

Elisabeth Gibert
email: elisabeth.gibert@urv.cat

Spanish adjectival passives with a progressive reading

Keywords: adjectival passives, stativity, eventivity, dynamicity, Spanish

This paper addresses Spanish adjectival passives with estar showing a progressive reading. In the previous literature, it has been acknowledged that the participles of verbs encoding non-dynamic events, such as vigilar 'guard', give rise to a progressive reading when embedded in adjectival passives. Yet, we have identified another group of verbs, those of the type of perseguir 'chase', which denote dynamic atelic events (i.e., activities) and whose participles are also attested in estar-passives with a progressive denotation. This is a very significant finding, since it is commonly assumed that only participles of verbs including a stative component in their event structure (i.e., telic or stative verbs) can be part of adjectival passives. After comparing the behaviour of these two types of verbs, we propose that they share a relational layer that in the case of vigilar-verbs defines an event as non-dynamic and in the case of perseguir-verbs defines a motion event as Isogloss 2022, 8(4)/8

Introduction

For a long time, it has been assumed that only participles of telic verbs, such as reparar 'repair' or traducir 'translate', could combine with estar (the stage-level copula) in Spanish [START_REF] Gaya | Curso superior de sintaxis[END_REF][START_REF] Alcina | Gramática española[END_REF] in the so-called adjectival passive. 1 In these constructions, a resultative or perfect meaning is obtained, since the state codified by the participle is understood to start after the culmination of a prior event:

(1) a. El coche (ya) está reparado. the car already is repaired 'The car is (already) repaired.' b. El informe está traducido al francés. the report is translated to.the French 'The report is translated to French.' From this perspective, as noted by Di [START_REF] Tullio | Participios y adjetivos[END_REF], the requirement for a participle to be allowed in adjectival passives with estar is that it must have the [perfect] feature -i.e., it must denote a result, like participles of telic verbs. The lack of such a [perfect] feature would explain why participles of activity verbs, such as acariciar 'caress, pet', are not compatible with estar:

(2) *El perro está acariciado. the dog is petted More recently, it has been shown that certain participles of atelic verbs are also allowed in passives with estar [START_REF] Mendikoetxea | Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. In Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte[END_REF]. This is the case of, at least, three groups of stative verbs [START_REF] Bosque | On resultative past participles in Spanish[END_REF]García-Pardo 2020a;[START_REF] Marín | Participles and Gerunds[END_REF]): extent verbs (3a), object experiencer psych verbs (3b), and a particular group of nondynamic eventualities, those of the type of vigilar 'guard' (3c).

(3) a. La casa está rodeada de árboles. the house is surrounded by trees b. Juan está preocupado.

Juan is worried 1

For the classical difference between verbal and adjectival passives, see [START_REF] Wasow | Transformations and the Lexicon[END_REF] and [START_REF] Levin | The formation of adjectival passives[END_REF]. For a recent overview, see [START_REF] Borik | Participles: Form, use and meaning[END_REF]. For the application of this distinction to Spanish, see [START_REF] Gehrke | Different by-phrases with adjectival and verbal passives: Evidence from Spanish corpus data[END_REF][START_REF] Berro | Breaking verbs: from event structure to syntactic categories in Basque[END_REF], Giber t-Sotelo (2022), and references therein. For the individual-/stage-level contrast [START_REF] Carlson | Reference to kinds in English[END_REF] applied to Spanish ser vs. estar, see, among others, [START_REF] Leonetti | Ser y estar: estado de la cuestión[END_REF].

c. El edificio está vigilado.

the building is guarded

The data exemplified in (3), together with those in (1), are quite easily explained by means of the generalization postulated by [START_REF] Rapp | Zustand? Passiv? Überlegungen zum sogenannten "Zustandspassiv[END_REF], according to which only participles of verbs denoting states or including a stative component can be part of adjectival passives. This is in fact the case of the participles of telic verbs, which denote a (resultant) state, coming from a prior event (1). The participles in (3) also fulfil this requirement, since they codify a state which is derived, at least partially, from the stative component of the verbal base. Yet, the three classes of predicates exemplified in (3) do not show the same denotation: while extent verbs (3a) and object experiencer psych verbs (3b) describe a typical (stage-level, bounded) stative predicate in the adjectival passive, comparable to estar + adjective constructions (La casa está llena de flores 'The house is full of flowers'; Juan está enfermo 'Juan is ill'), the verb vigilar 'guard' denotes a state comparable with the progressive when involved in this construction (3c). Let us delve into this third type of verb next.

As has been recently observed [START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF], 2017;[START_REF] Bosque | On resultative past participles in Spanish[END_REF][START_REF] García-Pardo | Aspect and argument structure in adjectival passives[END_REF][START_REF] Gibert-Sotelo | Los participios adjetivales: Clasificación y análisis sintáctico[END_REF], verbs of the vigilar type (4) show an unexpected behaviour: in estar + participle constructions (3c), they give rise to a progressive reading that can be paraphrased by the passive progressive periphrasis estar + siendo + participle [lit. 'be + being + participle']. Thus, ( 5) is roughly equivalent to El edificio está siendo vigilado 'The building is being guarded'. As pointed out by [START_REF] Bosque | On resultative past participles in Spanish[END_REF], in the absence of estar, the same progressive meaning is observed: un edificio vigilado 'a guarded building' is not about a building which has been guarded, but about a building which is being guarded.

(4) vigilar 'guard', gobernar 'rule', controlar 'control', coordinar 'coordinate', dirigir 'manage', presidir 'preside over', proteger 'protect', supervisar 'supervise', asesorar 'advise'

(5) El edificio está vigilado (por la policía). the building is guarded by the police 'The building is (being) guarded (by the police).'

According to [START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF] and [START_REF] Bosque | On resultative past participles in Spanish[END_REF], vigilar-verbs (4) denote Davidsonian states [START_REF] Maienborn | On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences[END_REF]. [START_REF] Fábregas | On non-dynamic eventive verbs in Spanish[END_REF] also consider that vigilar-verbs denote situations halfway between states and events, but analyse them as non-dynamic events. García-Pardo (2020a), in turn, argues that vigilar-verbs are stative causatives. In any case, it could be easily maintained that it is their stative component which enables these verbs to be part of adjectival passives, so that Rapp's generalization is respected.

However, we have identified another group of verbs (6) which, like vigilarverbs, also have a progressive reading in adjectival passive constructions ( 7), yet their denotation is properly dynamic and atelic.

(6) perseguir 'chase, pursue', buscar 'look for, search', acosar 'harass, pursue relentlessly', acompañar 'accompany', escoltar 'escort', hostigar 'harass' (7) Juan Carlos está perseguido/ buscado (por la justicia). Juan Carlos is persecuted/ wanted by the justice 'Juan Carlos is (being) persecuted/ wanted (by the law).'

Perseguir-verbs, then, pose a serious problem to Rapp's generalization, according to which activities are explicitly out in adjectival passives (2). Nevertheless, as we will see, perseguir-verbs have a particular denotation that provides them with the stative layer needed in adjectival passives; consequently, we can conclude that Rapp's generalization is still tenable.

Perseguir-verbs vs. vigilar-verbs

In this section, we provide an aspectual characterization of both perseguir-and vigilarverbs. In section 2.1, we show that perseguir-verbs are dynamic and pattern with activities, while vigilar-verbs show a mixed behaviour between states and activities. In section 2.2, we show that both perseguir-and vigilar-verbs, although not necessarily for the same reasons, are atelic. Finally, in section 2.3, we provide an analysis of these two types of verbs within the First Phase Syntax framework developed by [START_REF] Ramchand | Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Ramchand | Situations and Syntactic Structures: Rethinking Auxiliaries and Order in English[END_REF].

Differences in dynamicity

In recent years, since the seminal discussion about Davidsonian-states by [START_REF] Maienborn | On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences[END_REF], various authors have begun to distinguish between eventivity (i.e., the presence of an event) and dynamicity (i.e., the presence of change) [START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF], 2017;[START_REF] Jaque | La expresión de la estatividad en español: Niveles de representación y grados de dinamicidad[END_REF][START_REF] Silvagni | Entre estados y eventos: un estudio del aspecto interno del español[END_REF]among others). Here we adhere to this view, and we also separate tests on eventivity from tests on dynamicity. As we show, both perseguirand vigilar-verbs denote events, but only perseguir-verbs, not vigilar-verbs, are dynamic predicates.

In this respect, observe in ( 8)-( 10) that both perseguir-verbs (examples a) and vigilar-verbs (examples b) pattern with activities (examples c) with respect to a number of diagnostics on eventivity [START_REF] Maienborn | On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences[END_REF][START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF]. Observe that these three classes of predicates, unlike states (examples d), are compatible with the progressive (8), are available as infinitival complements of perception verbs (9), and accept modification by manner and place adverbials (10). ( 8 An additional piece of evidence of the aspectual differences between perseguir-verbs and vigilar-verbs comes from their related nominalizations. According to García-Pardo (2020b), the nouns derived from vigilar-verbs, such as those in (14), are stative.

(14) conservación 'preservation', coordinación 'coordination', dirección 'direction, management', gobierno 'government', mantenimiento 'maintenance', presidencia 'presidency', protección 'protection', vigilancia 'surveillance'

Observe that they do not pluralize (15a), they cannot be subjects of tener lugar 'take place' (15b), and they cannot be complements of durante 'during' (15c), respectively (examples from García-Pardo 2020b).

(15) a. *Las sucesivas protecciones de los testigos fueron en vano.

the successive protections of the witnesses were in vain b. *La administración de la finca tuvo lugar esta mañana. the administration of the building took place this morning c. *Durante la vigilancia de los sospechosos yo estaba en casa.

during the surveillance of the suspects I was in home By contrast, the nouns derived from perseguir-verbs (16) show the opposite behaviour: they pluralize (17a), they can be subjects of tener lugar 'take place' (17b), and they can be complements of durante 'during' (17c). ( 16) persecución 'chase', acoso 'harassment', acompañamiento 'accompaniment', búsqueda 'search', hostigamiento 'harassment'

(17) a. Las sucesivas persecuciones (a los atracadores) fueron en vano. the successive chases to the robbers were in vain 'The successive chases (to the robbers) were in vain.' b. La búsqueda del cadáver tuvo lugar esta mañana.

the search of.the corpse took place this morning 'The search of the corpse took place this morning.' c. Durante la persecución de los sospechosos yo estaba en casa.

during the chase of the suspects I was in home 'During the chase of the suspects I was home.' These data clearly show that perseguir-nominalizations, unlike vigilar-ones, are eventive, which further supports the non-identical nature of vigilar-and perseguirverbs. Table 1 summarizes the differences between these two types of verbs with respect to the aspectual diagnostics just presented.

Table 1. Aspectual contrasts between vigilar-verbs and perseguir-verbs

As can be seen, vigilar-verbs are halfway between states and activities, while perseguir-verbs pattern with activities. In line with [START_REF] Fábregas | On non-dynamic eventive verbs in Spanish[END_REF], we state that vigilar-verbs denote non-dynamic events, a particular type of Davidsonian states [START_REF] Maienborn | On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences[END_REF], while perseguir-verbs denote activities, i.e., dynamic events. Thirdly, the progressive of perseguir-verbs and vigilar-verbs implies the perfect, whereas the progressive of telic predicates does not [START_REF] Dowty | Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[END_REF]):

(A)telicity

(21) a. Eva está persiguiendo al jefe.

→ Eva ha perseguido al jefe. Eva is chasing the boss Eva has chased the boss b. Mariana está vigilando el edificio. → Mariana ha vigilado el edificio.

Mariana is guarding the building Mariana has guarded the building c. Pedro está pintando un cuadro ↛ Pedro ha pintado un cuadro. Pedro is painting a picture Pedro has painted a picture As illustrated in ( 21), if we interrupt Eva while she is chasing the boss, it is entailed that she has chased the boss (21a); similarly, if we interrupt Mariana while she is guarding the building, it is entailed that she has guarded the building (21b); but, if we interrupt Pedro while he is painting a picture, it is not entailed that he has painted a picture (21c).

We can conclude, therefore, that both perseguir-and vigilar-verbs are clearly atelic. Besides, as we will see in the following sections, they cannot be telicized under any circumstances, unlike most activity predicates.

Analysis: Vigilar-and perseguir-verbs

Following a neoconstructionist approach to the syntax-lexicon interface, we assume that the particular behaviour of vigilar-and perseguir-verbs can be structurally derived. In particular, we adopt the First Phase Syntax model proposed in [START_REF] Ramchand | Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax[END_REF] and further developed in [START_REF] Ramchand | Situations and Syntactic Structures: Rethinking Auxiliaries and Order in English[END_REF], according to which the domain of argument and event structure (i.e., the first phase) can be syntactically decomposed into a series of subeventive heads: Init(iation), a stative subeventive head that involves causation; Proc(ess), the subevent introducing eventivity and licensing the Undergoer argument; and Res(ult), a stative projection which, being in the complement of Proc, is configurationally interpreted as a result state, and which licenses the argument acting as the holder of such a result state (the Resultee) in its specifier position. At the edge of the first phase, a head is merged which introduces the utterance situation and licenses the external argument as its specifier: Ev(en)t. This is represented below: Crucially, the domain of the first phase not only contains subevents, but it may also embed Rhemes, i.e., material in the complement of a subeventive projection that describes it by structural homomorphism [START_REF] Ramchand | Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax[END_REF]). Hence, for example, if a Proc subevent combines with a Rheme corresponding to a PathP, such a process will be understood as a dynamic event of change (cf. (23) a. Karena walked to the pool in ten minutes/*for ten minutes.

b. Karena walked towards the pool *in ten minutes/for ten minutes.

Our approach differs from [START_REF] Ramchand | Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Ramchand | Situations and Syntactic Structures: Rethinking Auxiliaries and Order in English[END_REF] in three respects. First, we assume that Proc does not involve dynamicity, but just eventivity, following [START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF], [START_REF] Jaque | La expresión de la estatividad en español: Niveles de representación y grados de dinamicidad[END_REF], [START_REF] Berro | Breaking verbs: from event structure to syntactic categories in Basque[END_REF], and Gibert-Sotelo (2017). Second, we do not assume Ramchand's (2008: 47) restriction on the type of Rheme a Proc subevent can combine with: if Proc is just the locus of eventivity (and not the locus of dynamic change), then it may combine not only with a path-denoting Rheme (which, as mentioned, will yield a dynamic event of change), but also with a Rheme involving no path structure (which will yield a homogeneous process involving no change, as proposed by [START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF]; see below). Finally, we assume that roots bear no category and occupy a position in the syntactic derivation, along the lines of works within Distributed Morphology.

In what follows, we will concentrate on the syntactic analysis of the verbs found in adjectival passives with a progressive reading, to wit, vigilar-verbs and perseguir-verbs.

Vigilar-verbs have been recently analysed by García-Pardo (2020a) as stative causatives. According to this author, who takes Ramchand's ( 2008) system as a framework, these predicates (which he calls govern-type verbs) involve a subeventive configuration that combines two states by means of a causal relation: a causing state (Init) and a result state (Res), the former taking the latter as complement (García-Pardo 2020a: 60):

(24) a. Berta gobierna el país.

Berta governs the country b.

[ initP Berta [ init' gobierna [ resP el país [ res' gobierna]]]]
Even though García-Pardo's analysis explains the non-dynamic character of vigilar-verbs, it fails to capture their eventivity, tested in section 2.1, since the projection needed for an event to be involved (i.e., Proc) is missing on his proposal. 2 For this reason, we think that the proposal by [START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF], 2017), who argue that verbs of the type of vigilar 'guard' and gobernar 'govern, rule' involve eventivity but not dynamicity, is to be preferred. In particular, we assume that vigilarverbs are a subtype of Davidsonian states that enter transitive structures and involve agentivity (as opposed to the type of Davidsonian states first identified by [START_REF] Maienborn | On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences[END_REF][START_REF] Maienborn | On Davidsonian and Kimian states[END_REF], which mainly correspond to intransitive predicates for which an agentive controller is not a requirement; cf. sit, stand, lie, wait, gleam, and sleep).

Fábregas & Marín derive the non-dynamicity of these eventive predicates from the presence of a central coincidence P (P CC ) [START_REF] Hale | Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples[END_REF] García-Pardo (2020a: §3.2.2.1) offers a critical review of the tests commonly used to diagnose eventivity. Despite it being true that many of the tests are not without problems, it is also true that vigilar-verbs typically pass all of them, in contrast to other stative (non-eventive) predicates, which points towards the eventive nature of the former. Besides, and as we discuss in this paper, the progressive reading involved in the adjectival passives of vigilar-verbs is not available in other stative predicates that lack eventive features (e.g., object experiencer psych verbs and extent verbs; cf. section 1), since no event can be understood to be in progress if no event is involved. We take this fact as a further piece of evidence of the eventive character of vigilar-verbs.

coincide [START_REF] Hale | Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples[END_REF]). 3 If a P CC sits in the complement of the eventive head, by structural homomorphism (or event identification) the event will be defined as nonchanging, which explains the non-dynamic character of this particular type of verbs. We will basically adopt Fábregas & Marín's proposal, but adapted to [START_REF] Ramchand | Situations and Syntactic Structures: Rethinking Auxiliaries and Order in English[END_REF] formalization, as illustrated in [START_REF] Bruening | Word Formation is Syntactic: Adjectival Passives in English[END_REF] with the analysis of the sentence Los vecinos vigilan el edificio 'The neighbours guard the building'. As shown, we assume that the root of the verb (VIGIL) is merged in the complement of a P CC that establishes a stative relation of central coincidence between it, interpreted as a Ground, and the internal argument (el edificio 'the building'), merged in the specifier of the P CC and therefore interpreted as a Figure . Accordingly, el edificio 'the building' is understood to be under vigilancia 'surveillance'. This P CC , in turn, is selected by a Proc head that introduces an event but which, having a P CC in its complement position, is not understood as a dynamic change, but as the homogeneous maintenance of a stative relation. 4 This Proc head is immediately dominated by an Init subevent that defines it as a caused event. Finally, the Evt head merged on top converts the subeventive configuration into a Davidsonian event and licenses the external argument los vecinos 'the neighbours', which corresponds to the Initiator of the eventuality.

3

The central coincidence relation between the Figure and the Ground must not necessarily correspond to a literal location. Notice that Hale (1986: 242) asserts that the central/non-central coincidence opposition is not only found in the spatial domain, but that it "enters into other domains of grammar in which relations between entities are expressed". In fact, the distinction between central and non-central coincidence has been applied, e.g., by [START_REF] Demirdache | The Primitives of Temporal Relations[END_REF], to temporal and aspectual relations (see also [START_REF] Hale | Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples[END_REF].

4

On the idea that verbs of this type involve a relation of maintenance between an event and a stative component, see [START_REF] Neeleman | The linguistic expression of causation[END_REF], who also classify them as Davidsonian states.

The second type of verbs dealt with in this study are those of the type of perseguir 'chase', which constitute a new class of activity verbs first identified in Gibert-Sotelo & Marín (in press). Like canonical activities, perseguir-verbs involve dynamicity (cf. the diagnostics in section 2.1). However, they differ from other activity verbs in the fact that they can never be telicized or coerced into a telic reading. In fact, activities can be interpreted as telic accomplishments when a limit to the event is contextually determined (Rothstein 2008: 194), as in ( 26), where the quantized object (26a) and the hasta-headed PP (26b) delimit the extent of the event. Perseguir-verbs, by contrast, cannot be telicized by adding a PP expressing an endpoint, as illustrated in [START_REF] Maienborn | On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences[END_REF].

(26) a. Luisa ha corrido tres quilómetros (en diez minutos).

Luisa has run three kilometres in ten minutes 'Luisa has run three kilometres (in ten minutes).' b. Ha empujado el carro hasta la esquina (en cinco minutos).

has pushed the cart to the corner in five minutes '(S)he has pushed the cart to the corner (in five minutes).' ( 27) a. La policía ha perseguido al ladrón hasta la frontera the police have.3SG chased DOM.the thief to the border (*en dos horas).

in two hours 'The police have chased the thief to the border (*in two hours).' b. Juan escoltó al presidente hasta su residencia (*en dos horas). Juan escorted DOM.the president to his residence in two hours 'Juan escorted the president to his residence (*in two hours).'

Perseguir-verbs encode a dynamic motion event that lacks a natural culmination and is hence maintained. They involve the idea of going after someone or something steadily. Therefore, despite being dynamic, these predicates also encompass a stative component that accounts for the idea of steady maintenance that they entail.

We assume that the dynamicity of this type of activities lies in the presence of a PathP in the complement of Proc. Evidence for the presence of this Path component is provided by the ability of these verbs to co-occur with adjuncts specifying the route followed in the course of the event (28a), its direction (28b), or its extent (28c).

(28) a. Las autoridades buscan al agresor por todos los rincones the authorities look.for DOM.the aggressor through all the corners de la ciudad.

(Google) of the city 'The authorities look for the aggressor through all the corners of the city.' b. La acompañé hacia donde la esperaba su 3SG.ACC.FEM accompanied towards where 3SG.ACC.FEM waited her hermana mayor.

(CREA) sister older 'I accompanied her towards where her older sister was waiting for her.' c. Paco Lobatón lo hubiera perseguido Paco Lobatón 3SG.ACC.MASC would.have persecuted hasta Bolonia.

(CREA) to Bologna 'Paco Lobatón would have persecuted him to Bologna.'

The necessary atelicity of these verbs, which encode a motion event that has no possible endpoint (cf. ( 27)), emerges if the Path in the complement of Proc is nonbounded and, in addition, cannot be delimited by adding material in its complement. We claim that this effect is obtained by merging a P CC in the complement of Path, since this P CC will define the Path as involving the continuous coincidence of the Figure and the Ground and, in addition, will prevent a phrase defining a limit to be added directly in the complement of the Path head (since this position will be already occupied by the P CC ). 5 Accordingly, we propose that perseguir-verbs involve a structure like the one represented in (29) for the sentence Las autoridades persiguen al agresor 'The authorities chase the aggressor'. Even though the notion of central coincidence has sometimes been identified with that of Place, they are to be distinguished. Place defines a location (the location of the Figure with respect to the Ground), and so when a Path projection takes a Place head as its complement, such a Place is by default understood as a final location [START_REF] Jackendoff | Semantics and Cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Svenonius | Spatial P in English[END_REF]) that provides a boundary to the Path, thus defining a terminal coincidence relation instead of a central coincidence one. Furthermore, and as pointed out by Real Puigdollers (2013: 31), the notion of central coincidence also covers cases in which the Figure moves along a Path but never leaves the limits of the Ground, which corresponds to an unbounded Path.

In a nutshell: verbs of the type of perseguir 'chase' encode the initiation (Init) of a dynamic motion event (Proc + Path) that is steadily maintained in a central coincidence relation (P CC ) that involves constant coincidence between a moving Figure and a Ground. As mentioned, the Path head in the complement of Proc defines the event as dynamic, and the presence of a central coincidence preposition (P CC ) in the complement of Path yields a non-bounded Path, which accounts for the necessary atelicity of these verbs and for the idea of maintenance that they all involve. This maintained dynamic event is initiated by the external argument (las autoridades 'the authorities') which, merged in the specifier of an Evt head selecting an InitP as its complement, is understood as a volitional Initiator that controls the event and ensures its continuation. The internal argument (el agresor 'the aggressor'), in turn, corresponds to the DP in the specifier of Proc, which is configurationally identified with the Undergoer of the process but which, being first merged in the specifier of P CC and in the specifier of Path, is also understood as a Figure moving through a nondelimited Path.

Perseguir-verbs, hence, constitute a type of eventuality halfway between canonical activities and non-dynamic events: like other activities, they entail eventivity and dynamicity; like non-dynamic events, the event they encode is understood to be maintained in a central coincidence relation, which, as explored in the next section, allows them to enter adjectival passives and explains the progressive reading that they take in these constructions.

Accounting for adjectival passives with a progressive reading

In this section we explore the Spanish adjectival passives that involve a progressive reading, which correspond to those obtained from vigilar-and perseguir-verbs. We first compare the similarities and differences observed between them (section 3.1) and, after that, we offer a syntactic analysis that naturally derives the properties they show (section 3.2).

Adjectival passives with a progressive reading: Properties

As pointed out before, adjectival passives including participles from vigilar-or perseguir-verbs give rise to a progressive reading, not to a resultative one, as illustrated in (30).

(30) a. El edificio está vigilado.

the building is guarded Intended: ✗ 'The building has been guarded.' (Perfect resultative) ✓ 'The building is being guarded.' (Progressive) b. El ladrón está perseguido.

the thief is chased Intended: ✗ 'The thief has been chased.' (Perfect resultative) ✓ 'The thief is being chased.' (Progressive)

Interestingly, such a progressive meaning is evidence of the fact that these adjectival passives keep (part of) the eventivity of the underlying verb, since one of the properties of eventive predicates is that they can appear in the progressive periphrasis ((31a), (32a)). Further evidence of this underlying eventivity is given by the ability of both vigilar-and perseguir-adjectival passives to be modified by manner adverbials ((31b), (32b)).

(31) a. El edificio está siendo vigilado.

the building is being guarded b. El país está gobernado con firmeza. the country is ruled firmly (32) a. Pedro está siendo acosado.

Pedro is being harassed b.

[Sanders] está perseguido con encono.

(Google) Sanders is persecuted with spite Likewise, the adjectival passives obtained from these verbs allow the expression of the underlying Initiator, which emerges as an optional adjunct by-phrase:

(33) a. Pedro está vigilado (por la policía).

Pedro is guarded by the police 'Pedro is guarded by the police.' b. La empresa está dirigida (por una familia muy influyente).

the company is managed by a family very influential 'The company is managed (by a very influential family).'

(34) a. El ladrón está perseguido (por la policía). the thief is chased by the police b. Luisa está acompañada (por su marido).

Luisa is accompanied by her husband

In the preceding sections it has been shown that the basic difference between vigilar-and perseguir-verbs is the full dynamicity of the latter, which involve a Path component and encode a particular type of motion event (one which entails continuous motion with no possible endpoint). In the adjectival passive this component is still traceable, as evidenced by the possibility of attesting examples like the ones in ( 35), where the adjectival passives obtained from perseguir-verbs admit modifiers which focus on the direction of the motion event (35a) or on its extent (35b).

(35) a. Estarás acompañado hacia tus objetivos terapéuticos you.will.be accompanied towards your.PL goals therapeutic.PL por un profesional.

(Google) by a professional 'You will be accompanied towards your therapeutic goals by a professional.' b. En la canción, el granjero está perseguido hasta la frontera in the song the farmer is chased to the border por un perro.

(Google) by a dog 'In the song, the farmer is chased to the border by a dog.' This Path component, though, gets blurred in the adjectival passive, and accordingly the modifiers that focus on this element are not always licensed (compare (36) and ( 37)).

(36) a. La policía busca al ladrón por toda la ciudad. the police look.for.3SG DOM.the thief through all the city 'The police look for the thief through all the city.' b. Cristina acompañó a Marta hacia la salida. Cristina accompanied DOM Marta towards the exit 'Cristina accompanied Marta towards the exit.' c. Lo persiguieron hasta la frontera francesa. 3SG.ACC.MASC chased.3PL up.to the border French 'They chased him to the French border.' (37) a. El ladrón está buscado (por la policía) ?por toda la ciudad. the thief is looked.for by the police through all the city ('The thief is looked for by the police ?through all the city.') b. Marta está acompañada (por Cristina) *hacia la salida.

Marta is accompanied by Cristina towards the exit ('Marta is accompanied by Cristina *towards the exit.') c. Estuvo perseguido *hasta la frontera francesa. was.3SG chased up.to the border French ('He was chased *to the French border.') Note that the modifiers oriented to the path are fully accepted in the corresponding verbal passives:

(38) a. El ladrón fue buscado (por la policía) por toda la ciudad. the thief was looked.for by the police through all the city 'The thief was looked for by the police through all the city.' b. Marta fue acompañada (por Cristina) hacia la salida.

Marta was accompanied by Cristina towards the exit 'Marta was accompanied by Cristina towards the exit.' c. Fue perseguido hasta la frontera francesa. was.3SG chased up.to the border French 'He was chased to the French border.'

In fact, the dynamicity kept in the perseguir-adjectival passives is less salient than that observed in their verbal uses. Hence, whereas perseguir-verbs receive a habitual reading in the present tense both in the active (39a) and in the passive voice (39b), this is not the case in the adjectival passive with estar (39c). Finally, in contrast with canonical atelic activities, which are only allowed in adjectival passives if coerced into a 'job done' reading (40) [START_REF] Kratzer | Building statives[END_REF][START_REF] Anagnostopoulou | Participles and Voice[END_REF]; García-Pardo 2020a), the adjectival passives of vigilar-(41) and perseguir-verbs (42) cannot be coerced into such a reading (a fact that is clearly related to the unbreakable atelicity of the underlying verbs; cf. ( 27)).

(40) a. El carro (ya) está empujado. the cart already is pushed 'The cart is already pushed.' b. El perro (ya) está acariciado. the dog already is petted 'The dog is already petted.' (41) a. El edificio (#ya) está vigilado. the building already is guarded 'The building is (#already) guarded.' (Only allowed if it is intended that 'The building is already being guarded') b. La empresa (#ya) está dirigida. the company already is managed 'The company is (#already) managed.' (42) a. El ladrón (#ya) está perseguido. the thief already is chased 'The thief is (#already) chased.' b. La secretaria (#ya) está acosada. the secretary already is harassed 'The secretary is (#already) harassed.' It seems, then, that the main difference observed between perseguir and vigilar-verbs (namely, the dynamicity of the former vs. the non-dynamicity of the latter) is somehow downgraded in the corresponding adjectival passives, whereas the stative component they share is promoted. This is in fact what allows these atelic verbs to enter the adjectival passive construction, since for this construction to be allowed, a stative layer must be available. This stative layer, which we have argued corresponds to a central coincidence projection (cf. section 2.3), is also responsible for the idea of maintenance that they involve as well as for the progressive reading of their adjectival passives.

Adjectival passives with a progressive reading: Analysis

The analysis we propose for the adjectival passives obtained from vigilar-and perseguir-verbs allows deriving all the properties mentioned in the previous section.

For the former, we propose a structure like the one represented in (43), which corresponds to the analysis of the sentence El edificio está vigilado por los vecinos 'The building is (being) guarded by the neighbours'. ( 43 As illustrated, the adjectival passives obtained from vigilar-verbs keep the subeventive configuration of the underlying verb but for the EvtP licensing the DP external argument: they preserve the Proc subevent introducing eventivity (and accordingly they can be modified by manner adverbials; cf. (31b)), the P CC in its complement (which accounts for the idea of maintenance that they involve and accordingly explains their progressive meaning as well as the impossibility of coercing them into a 'job done' reading; cf. ( 41)), and the InitP introducing the causing subevent (which allows the implicit Initiator to be expressed; cf. ( 33)). The lack of the Evt head explains why the implicit Initiator cannot emerge as a DP subject, emerging instead as an adjunct by-phrase at InitP (cf. [START_REF] Ramchand | Situations and Syntactic Structures: Rethinking Auxiliaries and Order in English[END_REF]. The AspP dominating the subeventive configuration converts it into a state and provides the participial morphology [START_REF] Embick | Locality, listedness, and morphological identity[END_REF][START_REF] Embick | On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English[END_REF]. To the extent that the state encoded by the participle is derived from an eventive configuration, we do not obtain a 'pure' individual-level state, but a stage-level one, which explains the compatibility of these participles with estar. Finally, the PredP merged on top defines a (non-verbal) predicate [START_REF] Bowers | The Syntax of Predication[END_REF][START_REF] Baker | Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives[END_REF] and introduces the copula (cf. [START_REF] Dikken | Relators and Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas[END_REF], licensing the underlying Undergoer object in its specifier position, where it is interpreted as the subject of the predication.

Considering that the passives we are dealing with are adjectival passives, the question could be raised why no a(djectival) head is present in the structure. 6 We mainly follow Embick (2003: 157) in the use of an Asp head that introduces the participial morphology and "is associated with stativity", and which, according to this author, "could equally be labelled a for 'adjective'". In fact, some authors addressing adjectival passives use the label Adj(ective) instead of the label Asp, assuming that it is the locus of both stativity and adjectival category [START_REF] Bruening | Word Formation is Syntactic: Adjectival Passives in English[END_REF][START_REF] García-Pardo | Aspect and argument structure in adjectival passives[END_REF]. Other authors propose structures where an a(djectival) layer embeds an Asp layer, the former categorizing the configuration and the latter (usually assumed to correspond to a perfect operator of the type proposed by [START_REF] Kratzer | Building statives[END_REF] stativizing it [START_REF] Alexiadou | External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach[END_REF][START_REF] Gibert-Sotelo | Los participios adjetivales: Clasificación y análisis sintáctico[END_REF]. In our approach, as in Embick's, the Asp head is responsible for the stative character of the construction and for the participial morphology. Besides, in the analysis we propose, the adjectival (i.e., non-verbal) nature of the structure is derived from the fact that no EvtP is projected, being projected instead a PredP that defines the configuration as a non-verbal predicate (cf. Gibert-Sotelo 2022).

As for the adjectival passives obtained from perseguir-verbs, such as El agresor está perseguido por las autoridades 'The aggressor is (being) chased by the authorities', we argue that they are the lexicalization of the configuration represented in ( 44). ( 44 In perseguir-adjectival passives the subeventive configuration of the underlying verb is also preserved: the Init subevent allows the presence of the Initiator as an adjunct by-phrase (cf. ( 34)); the Proc subevent accounts for the eventive properties kept by this construction (cf. ( 32)); the PathP in the complement of the event-introducing head accounts for the motion idea that they involve, which is still traceable in certain contexts (e.g., those exemplified in (35)), but which in fact gets blurred in comparison to the verbal uses of these predicates (cf. (36), (37), and (38); see below for a more detailed account of this "blurring" operation); and the P CC layer in the complement of Path explains why these adjectival passives convey a progressive reading and cannot be coerced into a 'job done' one (cf. ( 42)). As in the case of vigilaradjectival passives, the adjectival passives of perseguir-verbs involve the presence of an AspP that introduces the participial morphology and ensures the stative interpretation of the predicate, and a PredP on top that accounts for their predicative (adjectival) nature.

The restriction by [START_REF] Rapp | Zustand? Passiv? Überlegungen zum sogenannten "Zustandspassiv[END_REF], according to which only verbs including a stative component can be part of adjectival passives, is formally captured in the proposed analysis: in the adjectival passives here addressed, the required stative layer corresponds to the central coincidence P that defines the event as non-dynamic (vigilar-adjectival passives) or the Path as unbounded (perseguir-adjectival passives). Asp -which is the projection that defines the adjectival passive as a (derived) statepicks up the central coincidence P in both cases, thus yielding a stativized reading of the underlying event (which can still be retrieved, but which is not properly instantiated). 7 This operation is crucial in the case of perseguir-predicates, which are in principle unexpected in adjectival passives because they correspond to activities (Gibert-Sotelo & Marín, in press). As shown, when perseguir-verbs enter the adjectival passive, their stative P CC layer gets focused and their Path component gets blurred, which accounts for contrasts like the ones illustrated in (39) between their verbal uses (fully dynamic) and their behaviour in the adjectival passive (more static). The presence of the stativizing Asp head explains why in the adjectival passive the dynamicity of the underlying verb is demoted: given that the configuration is defined as a state by Asp, the Path layer in the complement of Proc loses its ability to properly define the event introduced by this head as a dynamic (or changing) event. By contrast, the P CC layer, being a stative component, gains prominence. As a consequence, the differences observed between vigilar-and perseguir-verbs are neutralized in the adjectival passive, which in both cases corresponds to a state and involves a progressive reading.

In sum, the progressive (or continuous) reading characteristic of the two types of adjectival passive constructions analysed here emerges from the Aktionsart of the underlying verb: vigilar-verbs encode (agentive) Davidsonian states and, as such, they involve a relation of maintenance between an event (Proc) and a stative layer (P CC ), rather than a proper causative relation (cf. Neeleman & van de Koot 2012); perseguirverbs are dynamic activities (Proc + Path), but the dynamic event they encode does not have any possible telos, and hence it is understood to be maintained in a central coincidence relation (P CC ) that contributes the stative component needed in the adjectival passive. Given that in both cases the event of the underlying verb lacks a limit, the state codified by the estar adjectival passive cannot be interpreted as starting 7 This is expected given the lack of EvtP in adjectival passives, since this is the projection that introduces the utterance situation and converts the event description into a Davidsonian event (Ramchand 2018: 16).

In our opinion, although this is quite speculative at the current stage of our research, the reason why perseguir-adjectival passives are affected by this constraint on animacy is that the type of event described by perseguir-verbs involves going persistently after a moving entity (50a). These verbs, in turn, can be coerced into a metaphorical reading in which the escaping Figure is a non-moving entity, in a way so that only the persecuting entity (the Initiator) is involved in the event, while the persecuted one stands in a location as the Goal to be achieved (50b).

(50) a. El policía persigue/ busca al ladrón. the policeman chases/ looks.for DOM.the thief 'The policeman chases/ looks for the thief.' b. El policía persigue/ busca nuevas pistas. the policeman chases/ looks.for new clues 'The policeman chases/ looks for new clues.'

We hypothesize that when these verbs are built with a non-moving object, the external argument becomes the moving Figure, and the object is understood as a Goal Ground merged in a low adjunct position within the first phase. This is illustrated in (51) with the tentative analysis of (50b), where the subject el policía 'the policeman' is the Figure that moves, the Undergoer of the event and its Initiator (it is first merged in the specifier of P CC and from there it moves up to the specifier of Path, to the specifier of Proc, and to the specifier of Evt), whereas the object nuevas pistas 'new clues' (which we conjecture is merged as an adjunct to P CC P) does not participate in the event and corresponds to the Goal pursued by the subject argument. Given that in these uses the object is not a canonical Undergoer or Theme (it does not occupy the specifier position of the Proc subevent nor the specifier position of the lower adpositional projections), it cannot be externalized in the adjectival passive (cf. McIntyre 2013). This restriction, though, does not apply to the verbal passive, which does not constitute an adjectival (stative) predication. Notice that, in English, verbal passives are admitted even by verbs selecting PPs instead of canonical DP objects (52a), but adjectival passives are not (52b).

(52) a. This topic is dealt with in the following section.

b. *This topic is well dealt with in the following section.

It seems that for the adjectival passive of perseguir-verbs to be possible, the underlying verb must denote continuous motion after a moving Figure, thus ensuring that the underlying object has the prominence required to be externalized in this construction. The analysis just offered is a tentative speculation, and we leave for further research the detailed study of the exact nature of the object of perseguir-verbs in the different uses of these predicates.

Concluding remarks

In Spanish, some adjectival passives built with the copula estar convey a progressive reading. As shown in this paper, this reading is obtained when the underlying verb belongs to one of the following two classes: the vigilar 'guard' class, which is composed by verbs that behave as Davidsonian states or non-dynamic events (cf. [START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF], 2017;[START_REF] Bosque | On resultative past participles in Spanish[END_REF], and the perseguir 'chase' class, a particular type of activity verbs that express continuous motion after a moving entity (Gibert-Sotelo & Marín, in press). According to the generalization postulated by [START_REF] Rapp | Zustand? Passiv? Überlegungen zum sogenannten "Zustandspassiv[END_REF], only verbs including a stative component can be part of adjectival passives, which easily explains the availability of Davidsonian states, like vigilar-verbs, in these constructions, but discards activities, like perseguir-verbs.

To solve this puzzle, we have compared these two groups of verbs as well as their adjectival passives so as to find out the projections involved in their first phase syntax [START_REF] Ramchand | Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Ramchand | Situations and Syntactic Structures: Rethinking Auxiliaries and Order in English[END_REF]. By doing so, we have demonstrated that vigilar-and perseguir-verbs incorporate a stative layer that accounts for their maintenance denotation, so that Rapp's constraint is respected in both cases.

For vigilar-verbs, we have assumed that this stative component corresponds to a central coincidence P that sits in the complement of the event-introducing head (i.e., Proc) and describes it as non-dynamic and atelic, following [START_REF] Fábregas | Differentiating eventivity from dynamicity: the Aktionsart of Davidsonian state verbs[END_REF], 2017). For perseguir-verbs, we have proposed that a central coincidence P is also involved, but in this case it sits in the complement of the Path head that defines the event introduced by Proc as a motion event, thus yielding an unbounded Path and, hence, a motion event necessarily atelic and continuously maintained.

In the corresponding adjectival passives, we have argued that an Asp head is merged on top of the subeventive configuration to provide the participial morphology and convert the underlying event into a state (cf. [START_REF] Embick | On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English[END_REF]. Given that the underlying event lacks a limit, the state codified by the participle cannot be interpreted as starting once the event has culminated, but as being simultaneous to the event, which explains the progressive reading of these constructions.

  It is not difficult to demonstrate that neither perseguir-verbs nor vigilar-verbs are telic. Note, firstly, that both perseguir-verbs (examples a) and vigilar-verbs (examples b) are compatible with for x time modifiers, but not with in x time (18) or to take x time ones (19), the opposite behaviour of telic predicates (examples c). a. Eva ha perseguido al jefe {*en/ durante} una hora. Eva has chased DOM.the boss in/ for an hour 'Eva has chased the boss {*in/ for} an hour.' b. Mariana ha vigilado el edificio {*en/ durante} una hora. Mariana has guarded the building in/ for an hour 'Mariana has guarded the building {*in/ for} an hour.' c. Pedro ha pintado un cuadro {en/ #durante} una hora. Pedro has painted a picture in/ for an hour 'Pedro has painted a picture {in/ #for} an hour.' (19) a. *Eva ha tardado una hora en perseguir al jefe. Eva has taken one hour in chase.INF DOM.the boss b. *Mariana ha tardado una hora en vigilar el edificio. Mariana has taken one hour in guard.INF the building c. Pedro ha tardado una hora en pintar un cuadro. Pedro has taken one hour in paint.INF one picture 'It took Pedro an hour to paint a picture.' Secondly, both perseguir-verbs (20a) and vigilar-verbs (20b) are disallowed as complements of acabar (or terminar) 'finish', unlike telic predicates (20c). (20) a. *Eva ha acabado/ terminado de perseguir al jefe. Eva has ended/ finished of chase.INF DOM.the boss b. *Mariana ha acabado/ terminado de vigilar el edificio. Mariana has ended/ finished of guard.INF the building c. Pedro ha acabado/ terminado de pintar el cuadro. Pedro has ended/ finished of paint.INF the picture 'Pedro has finished painting the picture.'

  (22) Decomposition of the first phase (adapted from Ramchand 2018: 80) EvtP introduces the utterance situation and licenses the external argument DP

  Fábregas & Marín 2012) which, depending on the (un)boundedness of the Path, will receive a telic (bounded Path; cf. (23a)) or an atelic (unbounded Path; cf. (23b)) interpretation (examples from Ramchand 2008: 48).

  in the complement of the event-introducing head (Proc in Fábregas & Marín 2012 and v in Fábregas & Marín 2017). A P CC establishes a(n abstract) locative relation between a Figure (the located object) and a Ground (the reference object) (Talmy 1975) that is constant and involves no change, since it requires the centre of the Figure and the centre of the Ground to 2

(

  39) a. El jefe persigue a los empleados. the boss chases DOM the employees 'The boss chases the employees.' (= Habitually) b. Los empleados son perseguidos. the employees are chased 'The employees are chased.' (= Habitually) c. Los empleados están perseguidos. the employees are chased 'The employees are chased.' (≠ Habitually)

  ) Analysis of vigilar-adjectival passives

	PredP
	El edificio	Pred'
	Pred	AspP
	está
		Asp	InitP
		-do
		InitP	por los vecinos
		Init	ProcP
		El edificio	Proc'
			Proc	P CC P
			El edificio	P CC '
			P CC	VIGIL

  ) Analysis of perseguir-adjectival passives

	PredP
	El agresor	Pred'
	Pred	AspP
	está
		Asp	InitP
		-do
		InitP	por las autoridades
		Init	ProcP
		El agresor	Proc'
			Proc	PathP
			El agresor	Path'
			Path	P CC P
			El agresor	P CC '
			P CC	PERSEG

We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this issue out.

Spanish adjectival passives with a progressive reading Isogloss 2022, 8(4)/8 19

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their relevant comments and criticism, as well as to the audience of LSRL 51 for discussion on the topics dealt with in this paper. Thanks also to Jonathan E. MacDonald and Katie VanDyne for their feedback. Any error is our own.

Elisabeth Gibert-Sotelo acknowledges funding from the fellowships Juan de la Cierva-Incorporación IJC2020-042785-I (MCIN / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033 and NextGenerationEU/PRTR) and Juan de la Cierva-Formación FJC2018-035901-I (MICIU / AEI), from the projects FFI2017-87140-C4-2-P and FFI2016-80142-P (MINECO, Spanish Government), from the 2017-SGR-165 Group on Language and Linguistics -ROLLING (AGAUR, Catalan Government), and from the grant 2021PFR-URV-72 (URV Program for Fostering Research).

once the event has culminated (the resultative reading), but as being simultaneous to the event (the progressive reading).

Open questions for further research

We have seen that perseguir-verbs denote (a particular type of) activities, while vigilar-verbs denote (a particular type of) Davidsonian-states. In the formation of adjectival passives, other differences between these two groups of verbs emerge. As a general consideration, it seems that perseguir-verbs are affected by certain constraints that are not observed in the case of vigilar-verbs. Thus, together with grammatical perseguir-adjectival passives such as (45), we find others, like those in (46), which are not acceptable.

(45) Villarejo está perseguido/ buscado por la policía.

Villarejo is chased/ searched by the police (46) a. *Las llaves están buscadas (por tus padres). the keys are searched by your b. *Ese objetivo está perseguido (por Pedro).

that objective is pursued by Pedro

Note that the passive progressive (estar siendo 'be being' + participle) counterparts of ( 46) are fully acceptable:

(47) a. Las llaves están siendo buscadas (por tus padres).

the keys are being searched by your parents b. Ese objetivo está siendo perseguido por Pedro.

that objective is being pursued by Pedro

We may think that the examples in ( 46) are not acceptable because of the byphrase, which refers to an individual; yet, the acceptability of these same examples does not improve with more generic -or collective-by-phrases:

(48) a. *Las llaves están buscadas por la policía.

the keys are searched by the police b. *Ese objetivo está perseguido por la empresa.

that objective is pursued by the company It seems, then, that the unacceptability of ( 46) and ( 48) lies in the type of underlying object (realized as the subject of predication in the corresponding adjectival passive), that is, only perseguir-verbs with animate objects are able to form adjectival passives. Observe that vigilar-verbs behave differently in this respect, since they are not affected by this constraint on animacy in the adjectival passive:

(49) Pedro/ el edificio está vigilado (por la policía).

Pedro/ the building is guarded by the police