Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

(35) a. *Resulta (, que vindrà)
Turns-out (, that will-come)
'It turns out (that he will come)'
b. *Ho resulta (, que vindrà)
It-ACC turns-out (, that will-come)
'It turns out (that he will come)'
c. (*Em) resulta que vindrà
(Me) turns-out that will-come
'It turns out (*to me) that s/he'll come'
Spanish resultar and Italian risultare have essentially the same meaning and behavior.
So we have built a theory in order to make sure that semblar is not a problematic case
(since whenever the CP is pronominalized as Accusative, there is a quasi-Argument I-subject),
but now the CP being claimed to be the actual I-subject of (non-raising) semblar-1 does not
behave like other CP I-subjects as far as (null) pronominalization is concerned. My suggestion is
that this is due to the epistemic nature of the semblar-1/resultar verbs: they are not true
predicates, but a kind of aspectual, semantically adjunct, predicate. 64 And in fact, predicates of
this kind can be paraphrased as adverbial adjuncts ('apparently' for semblar-1, 'in fact' for
resultar are close paraphrases). 65 There are other cases of CPs that cannot be pronominalized or
dislocated. One is the following, in Catalan:
64 The idea that raising verbs are adjunct predicates is
proposed by Hernanz (1982), Rothstein (1983) and Torrego (1989).
65 This adjunct nature could also be an explanation for the
fact that these predicates are raising predicates: since raising
is a quite restricted phenomenon, we should be able to predict
why it is. We could claim that only adjunct predicates (modals
and aspectuals) can be raising predicates, possibly because they
are not truly bi-clausal (at least at LF).
1