Some S/P Constructs
The phenomena we are considering in this lecture are in fact to be accounted for in terms of the famliliar co-instantiation construction, but we will be giving special attention to phrasal categories (Adjectival, Nominal, Prepositional) which cannot directly instantiate their subject constituent: these are the categories which depend on a governing verb to coinstantiate their subject arguments.
Such examples can be seen in sentences (3) and (4). Adjectives like "angry" in (3) and "unhappy" in (4) cannot have their subjects directly instantiated: they always need the help of a co-instantiating verb. The verb serving that function is "seem" in the case of (3), "be" in the case of (4).
The simple cases of secondary predication involving phrase types whose subjects are (in English) always dependent on verbs for the instantiation of their subjects, are the kinds we have just seen with copular or quasi-copular verbs. The following display shows different verbs making provisions for the subject of "angry".
 Verbs Hosting "Angry"
In other cases, however, the secondary predicate appears to be an optional addition to the valence of the host predicator, adding new information about one of its arguments. Consider these sentences
 End-State Secondary Predicates
The transitive sentences in group  have similar superficial structures, but their coinstantiation patterns differ. In particular, in (2) and (4), with "reach" and "finish", it is the soldiers and Sue who ended up "exhausted" or "a complete wreck", not the camp or the project; and in (5) it is the package and the bicycle which ended up "wet" or "as good as new", not the boy or Pat. The arguments controlling the subject of the secondary predicate are the agent in sentences (2) and (4), the theme in (1), (3) and (5). There is a tradition according to which (ignoring passives) these are named subject-complements and object-complements.
One facet of the description of secondary predicates has to do with the thematic nature of the controller; another part is the semantic fit of the predicate into the conceptual structure of the host verb's semantic frame. In the examples of  we might say that the secondary predicate indicates the state something was in after some movement or process was finished.
Other temporal possibilities include beginning states (examples in ), sustained states (examples in ), and states while an action is going on (see ); still others are the state something is in as a result of the action (see ), the state that something is judged to be in (examples in ), and preferred states (see ).
 Beginning States
 Sustained States
It can be noticed that the verbs in  all have the secondary predicate as part of their minimal valence.
 States During Use or Manipulation
These examples can all be paraphrased as something like "when x" or "when it is/they are x" or the like. (You need to pick tomatoes when they are green.)
 Resulting States
Examples (1) and (2) in set  are among the few examples of pure intransitive verbs which can take resultative complements. Examples (6) and (7) show what often happens with intransitive verbs: a special construction is provided which uses a reflexive pseudo-object; these verbs cannot be used without the secondary predicate; examples (8) and (9) show intransitively used transitive verbs (i.e., in our terms, these are transitive verbs with INI-interpreted objects). The sentences with the secondary predicate omitted would have absurd meanings.
Many of the properties of resultative constructions are treated in the Goldberg book we examined last semester.
 Judged States
These sentences can be paraphrased with a "to be x" phrase: they found my argument to be unconvincing.
 Preferred States
These sentences, too, permit paraphrase with "to be x". In this respect verbs of preference are different from verbs of use or consumptions. I like coffee (to be) hot, but I drank the coffee *(to be) hot.
A question we need to consider is how to explain certain usage differences with the same verb, as with sentences (1) and(2) in set .
 Different Valences of "Find"
Parallel structures, using different verbs, are seen in sentences (3) and (4) of .
Some secondary predicates are introduced by a marker as and are headed by either an adjective or a noun. Compare the three examples in , illustrating three distinct valence types accepting as-complements. All three sentences are near-paraphrases of 'I consider Joe quite hostile/an enemy' but they require the marker.
With strike it is the subject of the (non- passivizable) which controls the secondary predicate; with regard it is the internal argument (object of active, subject of passive); and with look upon the controller is the object of the null preposition upon (or the subject of the corresponding prepositional passive.)
 Secondary Predicates with Marker "As"
 BE-Comps as Secondary Predicates
One of the most interesting of these is the type in which a secondary predicate headed by "with"or "without" contains another secondary predication. The syntactic oddity of these phrases with "with" and "without" is that the word does not function as an ordinary preposition at all. Its use is parallel to a use of its verbal partner, where it takes two complements, one nominal and one predicative, the former coinstantiating the subject requirement of the latter. Notice the examples in .
 Double Secondary Predicates withWITH.
 BE paraphrases for .
The secondary predicates we have introduced in this chapter may belong to any of the major syntactic categories: V, N, A or P. We observe now that the Coinstantiation construction has wider applicabilty than earlier noted, applying to all four syntactic varieties of secondary predicate, not only to VP complements.
The valence sets assigned to individual lexical items will specify just which syntactic categories, and sub- categories (e.g., [vif ing] , etc.), are called for in each case. For example:
The verb "become" can take adjective phrases ("became angry"), adjectivally interpreted prepositional phrases ("became out of sorts"), and nominal ("became our friend"), but not locative prepositional phrases ("*became in the kitchen").
The verb "turn" can take only adjective phrases ("turned sour", "turned warm", but not "*turned our enemy", "*turned in the kitchen").
The object-controlling transitive verb "make" can take unmarked verb-phrases, adjective phrases, nominal phrases, but not locative prepositional phrases ("made me do it", "made us angry", "made us paupers", but "*made them in the kitchen"). (Obviously there's nothing wrong with the word- string "made them in the kitchen", but in that case the preposition phrase is a locative adjunct rather than a secondary predicate. The 'subject' of the PP in that case is the whole predication, not one of its arguments.
The transitive verb "leave" allows secondary predicates which are marked infinitive VPs, participle phrases of both types, adjective phrases, locatively interpreted prepositional phrases, and indefinite noun phrases ("left me to do it", "left me sitting on the floor", "left him dead", "left the dog alone", "left her purse in the car", "left me a pauper").
The verb "be" takes anything but an unmarked infinitive VP ("is walking", "is alive", "is in the room", "is out of his mind", "is a fool", but not "*is walk in the park").
And so on. A full account would require us to consider the lexical variation in the valence structure of individual verbs (as illustrated by the examples above) and to become clear about the kinds of nominal and prepositional phrases that can serve as comp in such structures.
A revised Coinstantiation Construction (which does not need to specify [cat v] in the complement) will serve us well with verbs whose minimal valence contains reference to a gf comp; but we also need a means of showing how secondary predicates can be added to the valence sets of ordinary verbs. Among the generalizations we will need will be that verbs of consumption, preference, and affecting allow patient-controlled secondary predicates.
English contains a large number of idiomatic expressions with the internal form of preposition phrases but the external behavior of adjective phrases:
(i) He regards me as [ap [ppout of my mind/off my rocker]]
As-predications, discussed below, constitute one of environments in which this special adjectival behavior is observed. Another is illustrated in (ii), recalling, as we pointed out above, that "become" takes adjectival, but not prepositional-location, secondary predicates.
(ii) He became beside himself.