The English Resultative as
a Family of Constructions
Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004)
LING 7420 10/12/06
1. A Constructional View of
Grammar

The constructional view
a)
b)
c)
There is a cline of grammatical
phenomena.
Everything on this cline is to be
stated in a common format.
There is no principled divide
between ‘lexicon’ and ‘rules.’
At the phrasal level, pieces of
meaning are captured by
constructions.
A Constructional View of
Grammar

Differs from traditional lexicalist
approaches
Does not emphasize the role of
words (lexical heads) in
determining phrasal patterns
 Expands the notion of the lexicon
to include phrasal patterns

Examples of Constructions
Idiosyncratic
Garden-variety
…and everything in between!
Constructions are like idioms

Listed in the lexicon with
Syntactic structure
 Meaning
 Partial phonology


May have argument positions

“Twistin’ the night away.”


‘night’  obj. of ‘twist’
“Fred watered the plants flat.”

‘flat’  arg of ‘water’
??????

What are diagnostics for argument
positions of constructions?


In “Fred watered the plants flat,” how do
we know that “flat” is in an “argument
position?
“In the transitive resultative construction
(NP VP NP AP), the AP is an argument
position of the costruction…” = circular
logic?
The VP in constructions



Verb + construction =
complement structure
…but,…how?
Verbs across languages
(Narasimhan, 1998)
Similar semantic implications
 Similar aspectual properties
 Similar discourse contexts
 DIFFERENT constructions

Costs of constructions


Need to admit meaningful
constructions as items stored in
the lexicon
Need to abandon the rigid view
that the verb alone determines
the complement structure of its
VP
Evidence for constructions
(it’s not just an arbitrary explanation for one
syntactic phenomenon)


General principles of syntactic
and argument structure cannot
account for all meanings
Aspects of constructions are
rare cross-linguistically
2. Dimensions of Variations in
Resultatives

A family of constructions


1.
2.
3.
Sharing important properties but
differing in specifics
Family resemblances of the sort
found in nonlinguistic categories
Establish a taxonomy
State which properties are
from the construction
Pick out the differences
Terminology

Resultative Phrase (RP)
AP or PP
 Occupies the normal position of a
verbal argument
 Differ from depictive or “current
state” phrases

Resultative: “Herman hammered the
metal flat.”
 Depicitive: “She handed him the
towel wet.”

??????

Resultatives



Argument phrases
State is dependent
upon the action of
the main verb
Designates a result
Diagnostics, please!

Depictives



Clear adjuncts
Do not
designate
states
contingent on
the action
Do not
designate
results
Taxonomy of resultatives





Intransitive NP VP RP
Transitive
NP VP NP RP
Selected (d.o. selected by verb)
Unselected (d.o. not selected by
verb)
Fake reflexives (reflexive obj.
cannot alternate with other NPs)
Pop Quiz!



He drank himself
to a frenzy.
He stepped onto
the stage in a
Liberace-inspired
jacket made of
audio-cassette
tape and lulled me
into a false sense
of security
Get your butt over
here now!




The scallops have
shrunk tight.
The vaccinated
chased the
unvaccinated to
treatment.
She snogged him
senseless.
Sudoku, the puzzle
that drives
everybody crazy.
Property vs. Spatial

RP expresses a property


AP (and some PPs-- “into pieces”)
RP expresses a spatial
configuration

PP (and a few APs-- “free,”
“clear”)
??????

He jumped clear of the traffic.


AP spatial resultative
He drove me home.
Resultative?
 If so, what is “home”?

Host of the RP


NP who undergoes a change,
with the endpoint being
expressed by the RP
Usually

Transitive: object host


He hammered the metal flat.
Intransitive: subject host

The pond froze solid.
Unusual Hosts

Transitive Subject
“newly emerged in the literature”
 Demonstrates independent
dimension of variation (not
dependent upon transitivity)
 Bill followed the road into the
forest.
 All examples provided are spatial
resultatives

Unusual Hosts




Implicit (nonsubject) host
Verbs of bodily/substance
emission, ingestion
Entity of motion is not overtly
expressed
Deleted cognate object?
He coughed into the sink.
 She screamed into the phone.

Summary of independent
dimensions of resultatives



RP = AP vs RP = PP
RP = property vs. RP = spatial
Intransitive vs. Trasitive

Within transitive: selected vs.
unselected


Within unselected: normal vs. fake
reflexive
Choice of host
(subject/object/implicit)
3. The Semantics of the
Resultative

Two separable events
Verbal subevent
 Constructional subevent

More than just conjunction…
…the subevents are related
• MEANS
• RESULT
• INSTANCE
The Semantics of the
Resultative
The semantic argument
structure of the constructional
subevent determines the
syntactic argument structure of
the sentence by general
principles of argument linking.
…(however you want to link it)

Resultative Verbs vs.
Resultative Constructions

Inherently resultative verbs (verbal
resultatives*) have broader or
narrower selectional properties than
the general construction


“make”: allows NPs and APs (broader)
“drive”: only allows APs and PPs
referring to demented mental states
(narrower)
*verbal resultatives cannot be paraphrased as
two subevents
Property vs. Path Resultatives


Property: host attains the
property expressed by the RP
Path: host traverses the path
expressed by the RP

Follow-type and spit-type
examples discussed later…
Noncausative vs. Causative

Generally
Intransitive = Noncausative
 Transitive = Causative


Can be property or path, AP or
PP
Sound-emission and
disappearance resultatives



Same syntactic form as (16b), but
not licensed
Relationship between verbal and
constructional subevents is that the
verbal event is a RESULT of the
constructional (sound/disappearance
is a result of motion)
Selectional restrictions:
disappearance verbs and the wayconstruction
In summary (so far)

Distinct subconstructions with
Similar syntax, arg structure,
subevents
 Unique selectional restrictions


Subconstructions form a family
4. Aspectual Properties




Telic (“end-bounded”)
Atelic (“non-end-bounded”)
Stative
So you think resultatives are
invariably telic, huh?
Atelic resultatives

Property resultatives (AP)
Non-end-bounded change of state
 “A-er and A-er”
 “ever A-er”


Path resultatives (PP)
Non-end-bounded spatial PPs
 Diagnostic: “…for hours”

Stative Resultatives



Indistinguishable from path in
both syntactic and arg-structure
properties
Extension interpretation of
motion, or of maintenance of
shape
Causation does not involve
change, but forced maintenance
of state
Temporal Relation of
Subevents



To do “X by MEANS of Y” you
have to do X first!
Constructional subevent cannot
precede the verbal subevent
Verbal event is…
Concurrent with
 Overlapping with
 Entirely preceding

…the constructional subevent
Temporal Delay?????



(32) Sam sang enthusiastically
during the class play. He woke
up hoarse the next day and
said, “Well, I guess I’ve sung
myself hoarse.” (Rappaport,
Hovav & Levin 2001:775)
With all unselected objects?
Is it really a delay?
Temporal Relations

Relation between subevents
determined by:
Semantic relation
 Pragmatic world knowledge
 Tendency to interpret monoclausal
events as cotemporal

5. World Knowledge



Fake reflexives--should they
really be grammatically
separated from other
resultatives?
No. Because they just make
sense.
(hmmm…thoughts?)
6. How arguments are shared


How do we relate the verb args
to the construction args?
FAR
All args must be realized
 Syntactic positions can be shared


Diagnostic: an arg is necessary
in the active, simple past tense
How arguments are shared



Shared arguments have the
same thematic roles
Args with the same thematic
role share the same syntactic
position
Optionally transitive/Intransitive
verbs allow a constructional arg
to override
Pop Quiz, the sequel!

Map the verbal and
constructional arguments for the
examples from the first ‘pop
quiz.’
The Semantic Coherence
Principle


Only semantically compatible
roles (rV and rC) can be
combined
“Close enough”

If rV can be construed as an
instance of rC, they can be unified
Variability predicted




Potentially affected items can be
construed as patients
Events may be things that happen to
us or things that we do
Intransitive spatial resultatives vary
with the animacy of the subject
Transitive spatial resultatives need
“instigator” subjects
7. Extending the Analysis

Follow-type verbs
Transitive verbs
 Subject host
 Two types:

Motion determined by object
 Transitive noncausative spatial
resultatives



Obj = vehicle
Obj = path of motion
Extending the Analysis

Dancing mazurkas!

Verb + object = complex predicate


Can’t be passivized
Referential objects yield ill-formed
sentences
Extending the Analysis

Spit cases
Seem to violate FAR
 Implicit entities in motion



Bodily emission


Specified path--PP further delineates
the path
Highly inferable theme arguments
need not be overtly exressed
??? Thoughts ???
8. Productivity

Spatial resultatives
Totally productive
 Constraints posed by meaning of
construction
 Any spatial PP that can be a path
can be an RP

Telic/atelic
 Complex/simple
 Goal-directed/source-directed

Productivity

Property resultatives
Some lexical resultatives are
productive, allow for a range of
predicates
 Some lexical resultatives are more
constrained
 Productivity of APs depends on
the lexical resultative

Productivity

Idioms


A wide variety of examples…
Generalizations about APs
More productive = delineated
state
 Gradable APs = less productive


Restriction on PPs

PPs with acceptable
corresponding APs cannot be
RPs
In Summary
“…the grammar contains the
property resultative as an
overarching generalization, but
particular subclasses,
constrained in all sorts of
different ways, are learned
indivdually.”