Locative alternation and two levels of
verb meaning
SEIZI IWATA*
Abstract
Verbs like load or spray are known to alternate between two variants
(John sprayed paint onto the wall/John sprayed the wall with paint).
Both Rappaport and Levin (1988) and Pinker (1989) derive one variant
from the other, but these lexical rule approaches have a number of problems. This paper argues for a form-meaning correspondence model which
distinguishes between two levels of verb meaning: that of a lexical head
spray on the one hand and that of a phrasal constituent spray paint onto
the wall or spray the wall with paint on the other. Locative alternation
stems from the fact that a frame semantic scene encoded by spray can be
construed in two alternate ways. This proposed model allows us to account
for the data straightforwardly without su¤ering from the problems created
by lexical rule approaches. This proposed analysis is fundamentally the
same as Goldberg’s (1995) in being a version of Construction Grammar
approach. But unlike Goldberg’s Correspondence Principle-based account,
my analysis makes the most of the semantic compatibility between verbs
and constructions, thereby giving a more straightforward account of locative alternation.
Keywords:
locative alternation; L-meaning/P-meaning distinction; Construction Grammar; frame semantics; thematic core.
1. Introduction
A class of verbs called locative alternation verbs exhibit two variants, a
locative variant and a with variant in the terms of Rappaport and Levin
(1988).
(1)
a.
b.
Jack sprayed paint onto the wall. (locative variant)
Jack sprayed the wall with paint. (with variant)
Cognitive Linguistics 16–2 (2005), 355–407
0936–5907/05/0016–0355
6 Walter de Gruyter
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
356
(2)
S. Iwata
a.
b.
Bill loaded cartons onto the truck.
Bill loaded the truck with cartons.
The locative alternation phenomenon has attracted much attention because of a number of characteristics. The following discussion is concerned with the fundamental question of why a single verb appears in
more than one syntactic frame.
This paper is organized as follows: After reviewing the lexical rule approaches in Rappaport and Levin (1988) and Pinker (1989) and pointing
out their problems, Section 3 proposes an alternative analysis based on a
form-meaning correspondence model which crucially draws on two levels
of verb meaning. Section 4 shows the advantages of the proposed analysis
over lexical rule approaches, and Section 5 considers why lexical rule approaches look plausible despite their fundamental problems. Section 6
compares the proposed analysis with Goldberg’s (1995) Construction
Grammar approach, thereby showing the fundamental similarities between the two accounts on the one hand, and pointing out problems of
Goldberg’s Correspondence Principle-based account on the other. Section
7 shows, through case studies, that it is semantic compatibility between
verbs and constructions, rather than lexical profiling as defined by Goldberg, that determines the integration of verbs and constructions. And Section 8 considers how the proposed analysis can be extended to handle locative alternation involving morphological derivation.
2.
Lexical rule approaches
Two representative previous analyses are Rappaport and Levin (1988)
and Pinker (1989), both resorting to lexical rules.
2.1.
Rappaport and Levin 1988
Rappaport and Levin (1988) posit the semantic structures in (3), where
(3a) is for a locative variant and (3b) for a with variant.
(3)
a.
b.
load: [x cause [y to come to be at z]/ load]
load: [[x cause [z to come to be in state]]] by means of [x cause
[y to come to be at z]]/ load]
Crucially, (3a) is embedded under BY MEANS OF in (3b), meaning that
a change of state is brought about by means of a change of location. In
other words, a with variant is an extension of a locative variant, the main
clause of (3a) becoming a subordinate clause in (3b).
This analysis raises a number of problems. First, it ensures only
deriving the with variant from the locative variant. However, another
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
357
derivation is also necessary. In addition to locative alternation verbs, we
have both a class of verbs with only a locative version as in (4) and a class
of verbs having only the with version as in (5). A derivation from a locative variant would permit the class of verbs as in (4) as well as locative
alternation verbs, but not that of verbs as in (5).
(4)
(5)
a.
b.
a.
b.
Irv poured water into the glass.
*Irv poured the glass with water.
*She covered a rug over the floor.
She covered the floor with a rug.
Accordingly, there must be a derivation from the with variant as well. But
Rappaport and Levin say nothing about this derivation. Even if they tried
to find an appropriate one, it would be quite di‰cult to do so in their
framework. A conceivable solution is to reverse the means relation, as Inagaki (1989) does. To accommodate a derivation from the with variant,
Inagaki (1989) proposes the following representations for the two variants
of stu¤.
(6)
a.
b.
stuff: [x cause [y to come to be stuffed with z]]
stuff: [[x cause [z to come to be at y]/stuff] in order that [x
cause [y to come to be stuffed with z]]] (Inagaki 1989: 222)
(6b) is to be read as: A change of location is brought about in order for
a change of state to take place. For instance, stu‰ng feathers into the
pillow is brought about in order for stu‰ng the pillow with feathers to
obtain.
This analysis does not work, however. Even apart from its clumsiness,
this paraphrase fails to convey the correct meaning. Stu‰ng feathers into
the pillow is not necessarily done for the purpose of stu‰ng the pillow.
Moreover, in order that does not entail that stu‰ng the pillow is actually realized. Thus appeal to a purpose relation is unsatisfactory in these
respects, and it seems quite di‰cult to come up with an appropriate extension relation that forms a locative variant from a with variant.
Second, the means extension analysis cannot be easily applied to other
complement alternations. As is well-known, verbs other than locative
alternation verbs also exhibit two variants.
verbs of inscribing
(7) a. The jeweler inscribed a motto on the ring.
b. The jeweler inscribed the ring with a motto.
verbs of presenting
(8) a. The judge presented a prize to the winner.
b. The judge presented the winner with a prize.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
358
S. Iwata
verbs of forceful contact
(9) a. Kevin hit the stick against the wall.
b. Kevin hit the wall with the stick. (Rappaport and Levin 1988:
28–29)
The parallelism between these complement alternations and locative alternations is undoubtedly clear. But the means extension analysis creates
bizarre readings for the with variants: Inscribing the ring with a motto is
brought about by means of inscribing a motto on the ring; presenting the
winner with a prize is brought about by means of presenting a prize to the
winner; hitting the wall with the stick is brought about by means of hitting the stick against the wall. The means extension analysis as it stands
is hardly convincing here.1
2.2.
Pinker 1989
Pinker (1989), essentially following the analysis of Rappaport and Levin
(1988), argues that the locative alternation is e¤ected by a lexical rule that
operates on a semantic structure:
it is a rule that takes a verb containing in its semantic structure the core ‘X causes
Y to move into/onto Z,’ and converts it into a new verb whose semantic structure
contains the core ‘X causes Z to change state by means of moving Y into/onto it.’
(Pinker 1989: 79)
The semantic structures are as shown in Figure 1:
The relevant parts are shown as in (10). The whole EVENT structure
for the locative variant (10a) is embedded in the means clause in (10b).
(10)
a.
b.
EVENT
ACT
e¤ect
EVENT
GO
EVENT
ACT
e¤ect means
EVENT EVENT
GO
The two semantic structures are linked by a bidirectional arrow, because
Pinker assumes that the derivation proceeds in either direction: from the
locative variant to the with variant, or from the with variant to the locative variant. Directionality of the derivation is determined by the possibility of the direct argument standing as sole complement. If the theme NP,
but not the goal NP, stands alone, then the derivation is from the locative
variant to the with variant as in (11). If the goal NP, but not the theme
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
359
EVENT
Effect
ACT THING
THING
[(Bob)]
[(paint)]
EVENT:locational
GO
THING
PATH
(paint)
[ ]
to PLACE
<place-fnctn>
THING
(wall)
EVENT
ACT THING THING effect
[(Bob)] [(wall)]
means
EVENT
EVENT
Effect
GO
THING PROPERTY
ACT THING THING
EVENT
(wall)
GO
THING PATH
to PLACE
<place-fnctn>
THING
Figure 1. Semantic structures of ‘X causes Y to move into/onto Z’ and ‘X causes Z to
change state by means of moving Y into/onto it’
NP, stands alone, then the derivation is from the with variant to the locative variant as in (12). When either argument can stand as sole complement as in (13), the derivation can go in either direction.
(11)
(12)
(13)
a.
b.
a.
b.
a.
b.
He piled the books.
*He piled the shelf.
*He stu¤ed the breadcrumbs.
He stu¤ed the turkey.
He loaded the gun.
He loaded the bullets. (Pinker 1989: 125)
Pinker’s analysis di¤ers from that of Rappaport and Levin in accommodating the derivation that goes from the with variant as well. But the
very mechanism that Pinker introduces so as to guarantee the bidirectionality of derivation is problematic. First, it is rather doubtful whether the
possibility of standing as sole complement truly serves as a diagnostic
for the derivational base. As Pinker himself points out, some verbs allow
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
360
S. Iwata
neither the theme nor the goal argument to stand alone as in (14), and
some verbs allow either argument to stand alone as in (15).
(14)
(15)
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
d.
John heaped books on the shelf.
John heaped the shelf with books.
*?John heaped the books.
*John heaped the shelf.
John packed books into the box.
John packed the box with books.
John packed the books.
John packed the box. (Pinker 1989: 38–39)
Thus the possibility of sole complement does not always serve as a
diagnostic.
Moreover, the sole complement analysis seems hardly relevant to an
account of locative alternation. It is true that sole complement plays a
significant role in a number of linguistic phenomena, such as adjectival
passives, -able adjectives, middles, and process -ing nominals (Ito 1981;
Levin and Rappaport 1986; Endo 1986; Carrier and Randall 1992). These
phenomena form a natural class, in that they all involve a category
change or suppression of an external argument of the base verb. But the
locative alternation involves neither. It is simply a matter of multiple subcategorization frames and is quite di¤erent in character from the above
class.
The second problem concerns the plausibility of ‘extension.’ For clarity, I repeat (10).
(10)
a.
b.
EVENT
ACT
E¤ect
EVENT
GO
EVENT
ACT
e¤ect means
EVENT EVENT
GO
Pinker maintains that there are both a lexical rule that changes (10a) into
(10b) and one that turns (10b) into (10a). While the former amounts to
lexical subordination, the latter should be an ‘inverse of subordination’.
This means that verbs like stu¤ originally have the semantic structure of
(10b), and that the putative lexical rule deletes the main clause, thereby
promoting the erstwhile subordinate clause into the main clause. This derivation is too powerful and peculiar, and finds no analogue in other linguistic phenomena.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
361
Finally, Pinker treats locative alternation as a special relationship between two variants. But the alternation is not restricted to the two alternants. Wrap allows three variants.
(16)
a.
b.
c.
She wrapped the baby in a towel.
She wrapped the baby with a towel.
She wrapped a towel around the baby. (Nakau 1994)
Pinker’s analysis has di‰culty in handling (16).2
3. Analysis
3.1.
L-Meaning and P-Meaning
Toward the goal of working out a solution, let us begin by examining
what is actually going on in the phenomenon called locative alternation.
Our focal example is spray. What has been overlooked in previous analyses is the fact that in a conventional spraying scene, one sends substance
in a mist back and forth, as in Figure 2.
As a result of this back and forth movement, the substance eventually
comes to cover a large portion of the surface to which it has been applied.
So a spraying scene is described as in Figure 3, where a double-sided arrow indicates a back and forth movement of a substance’s application.3
Notice that this spraying scene can receive two alternate interpretations. If we focus upon the paint, we get an event of sending a substance
in a mist. Hence the locative variant of spray as in Figure 4.
Figure 2. Movements during conventional spraying scene
spraying scene
Figure 3. Substance’s application during spraying scene
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
362
S. Iwata
spray paint onto the wall:
‘To send a liquid in a mist or fine droplets’
Figure 4. Interpretation of spraying scene with focus on the substance
spray the wall with paint:
‘To cover a surface with an even coat of deposited liquid adhering to it’
Figure 5. Interpretation of spraying scene with focus on the wall
If, on the other hand, we focus upon the wall, this is an event of covering the wall with paint. Accordingly, spray ends up in the [NP V NP with
NP] frame, parallel to cover, as in Figure 5.
Thus the ability of spray to alternate stems from the fact that a spraying scene can be construed either as moving paint onto the wall or as covering the wall with paint.
This view of the locative alternation reveals a crucial distinction between spray on the one hand, and spray paint onto the wall or spray the
wall with paint on the other. The meaning of spray is all that is enclosed
at the top in Figure 4 or Figure 5. That is to say, spray means to send a
liquid in a mist or fine droplets AND to cover a surface with an even coat
of deposited liquid adhering to it. By contrast, spray paint onto the wall or
spray the wall with paint means a construal of this scene either as a sending activity or as a covering activity. Let us call the meaning of the former Lexical Head Level Meaning, or L-Meaning, and that of the latter
Phrase Level Meaning, or P-Meaning. When that part of the L-meaning
compatible with a thematic core is profiled (Langacker 1987, 1991) with
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
363
the rest of the L-meaning backgrounded, a lexical verb occurs in a relevant syntactic frame. The locative alternation arises when the L-meaning
may yield more than one P-meaning.
3.2.
Form-meaning correlations
Next, we need a mechanism that ensures the form-meaning correspondences of the two variants. Despite the problems noted above, Pinker advances a well-worked out model of linking. Rather than directly relating
individual verbs to syntactic frames, Pinker argues that form-meaning
correspondence is mediated by thematic cores, where a thematic core is
‘a schematization of a type of event or relationship that lies at the core
of the meanings of a class of possible verbs’ (Pinker 1989: 73). Thus thematic cores like X acts upon Y, X causes Y to have Z, etc. are related to
syntactic frames like [NP V NP], [NP V NP NP], etc. This means that a
verb appears in a particular syntactic frame if its meaning is compatible
with a thematic core associated with that syntactic frame.
Clearly this linking mechanism is appropriate for the task at hand, so
that the next thing to do is to identify the thematic cores associated with
the locative variant syntax and the with variant syntax. What is crucial in
this connection is the observation commonly made in the literature (Croft
1991; Langacker 1987; Rice 1987, among others) that the entity which
can appear in direct object position is that to which a force is transmitted
in a causal chain. This is confirmed by the ‘‘What X did to Y’’ test,
which, though often employed as a diagnostic for a¤ectedness (Jackendo¤ 1990), actually identifies a ‘‘force recipient’’ as Rappaport and Levin
(2001) convincingly argue. Thus with pour-class verbs the locatum argument is acted upon, while with cover-class verbs the location argument is
acted upon, as in (17) and (18).
(17)
(18)
a.
b.
a.
b.
What she did to the water was pour it into the glass.
?What she did to the glass was pour water into it.
??What she did to the rug was cover the floor with it.
What she did to the floor was cover it with a rug.
With locative alternation verbs the acted upon entity alternates between
the two variants, as shown in (19) and (20).
(19)
(20)
a.
b.
a.
b.
What Bill did to the paint was smear it on the wall.
?What Bill did to the wall was smear paint on it.
?*What Bill did to the paint was smear the wall with it.
What Bill did to the wall was smear it with paint. (Jackendo¤
1990: 130)
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
364
S. Iwata
X acts upon Y
X acts upon Y, thereby
X acts upon Y by exerting force horizon-
causing Y to go Z
tally over the surface of Y with Z
Figure 6. Two subtypes of ‘‘X acts upon Y’’
Thematic core:
X acts upon Y, thereby
causing Y to go Z
syntactic frame:
X acts upon Y by exerting force horizontally over the surface of Y with Z
NP V NP directional PP
NP V NP with NP
(a)
(b)
Figure 7. Form-meaning pairings
L-meaning:
P-meaning:
spray1
‘To send a liquid in a mist or fine droplets’
thematic core:
X acts upon Y, thereby causing Y to go Z
syntactic frame:
NP V NP directional PP
Figure 8. Form-meaning paring for spray1
It seems reasonable to suppose, then, that the two thematic cores
associated with locative variant syntax and with variant syntax are two
subtypes of ‘‘X acts upon Y’’ as in Figure 6. The schematic meaning extracted from pour-class verbs (dribble, drip, drizzle, dump, ladle, pour,
shake, slop, slosh, spill ) can be phrased as ‘‘X acts upon Y, thereby causing Y to go Z’’.
(21)
a.
b.
She poured water into the glass.
*She poured the glass with water.
On the other hand, that for cover-class verbs (deluge, douse, flood, inundate, bandage, blanket, coat, cover, encrust, face, inlay, pad, pave, plate,
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
365
L-meaning:
P-meaning:
spray2
‘To cover a surface with an even coat of deposited liquid adhering to it’
Thematic core:
X acts upon Y by exerting force horizontally over the surface of Y with Z
syntactic frame:
NP V NP with NP
Figure 9. Form-meaning pairing for spray2
shroud, smother, tile) may be phrased as ‘‘X acts upon Y by exerting force
horizontally over the surface of Y with Z’’.
(22)
a.
b.
*She covered a rug over the floor.
She covered the floor with a rug.
We now have two form-meaning pairings that are responsible for the
linking of pour-class verbs and cover-class verbs, as shown in Figure 7.4
Accordingly, the two variants of spray are accounted for as in Figures
8 and 9.
3.3.
Six classes
Pinker (1989: 126–127) observes that the locative alternation verbs fall
into the following six classes:
i.
Spray-class: Force is imparted to a mass, causing ballistic motion in
a specified spatial distribution along a trajectory: drizzle, shower,
spatter, splash, splatter, spray, sprinkle, squirt
ii. Smear-class: Simultaneous forceful contact and motion of a mass
against a surface: brush, dab, daub, drape, dust, hang, plaster, settle,
slather, smear, smudge, streak, swab
iii. Scatter-class: Mass is caused to move in a widespread or nondirected
distribution: plant, scatter, seed, sew, sow, strew
iv. Pile-class: Vertical arrangement on a horizontal surface: heap, pile,
stack
v. Cram-class: A mass is forced into a container against the limit of its
capacity: cram, crowd, jam, stu¤, wad
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
366
S. Iwata
Figure 10. Movements during conventional smearing scene
Figure 11. Substance’s application during conventional smearing scene
smear paint on the wall
Figure 12. Interpretation of smearing scene with focus on the substance
vi.
Load-class: A mass of a size, shape, or type defined by the intended
use of a container is put into the container, enabling it to accomplish
its function: load, pack, stock
Not only is my account valid for spray-class verbs; it naturally extends
to other classes as well. Thus smear also involves the back and forth
movement of strokes over a surface, as shown in Figure 10.
(23)
a.
b.
smear paint on the wall
smear the wall with paint
Accordingly, the smearing scene is described as in Figure 11.
If we focus upon the locatum of this scene, we get the locative variant
as in Figure 12. If, on the other hand, we focus upon the location, we obtain the with variant as in Figure 13.
Similarly, with scatter-class verbs mass is caused to move in a widespread or nondirected distribution, so that the relevant scene can be construed either as a covering activity or as a pouring activity.
(24)
a.
b.
The farmer scattered seeds in the field.
The farmer scattered the field with seeds.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
367
smear the wall with paint
Figure 13. Interpretation of smearing scene with focus on the location
piling scene
Figure 14. Conventional piling scene
With pile-class verbs the objects are arranged vertically, rather than
horizontally over a surface. But since the objects thus arranged come to
occupy a large portion of the relevant surface, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that the with variant of this class is also licensed as a covering
activity.
(25)
a.
b.
pile books onto the shelf
pile the shelf with books
The remaining two classes involve putting something into a container.
With cram-class verbs mass is forced into a container against the limit of
its capacity. So the container becomes fully occupied, and its inside, rather
than the surface, is acted upon.
(26)
a.
b.
cram food into the freezer
cram the freezer with food
With load-class verbs a kind of contents specific to a container are put
into the container, which enables the container to act in a designated way
(e.g., load a camera, load a gun).
(27)
(28)
a.
b.
a.
b.
load hay onto the truck
load the truck with hay
pack shirts into the suitcase
pack the suitcase with shirts
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
368
S. Iwata
loading scene
Figure 15. Conventional loading scene
X acts upon Y by exerting force to a significantly large portion of Y
[cover-type]
1. spray
2. smear
[overfilling]
3. scatter
4. pile
5. cram
[insertion]
6. load
Figure 16. Schematic meaning of the with variant syntax of spray, smear, scatter, pile,
cram, load
Unlike the cram-class, load-class verbs do not necessarily literally ‘fill’ the
container (Je¤ries and Willis 1984). Still, a significant portion of the container is occupied, and the container can be regarded as being thereby
acted upon.
Of the six classes, the first three (spray, smear, and scatter) clearly involve covering a surface. The fourth class, i.e. the pile-class, can also be
put into this category. The cram-class and the load-class involve occupying a significantly large portion of the container. Accordingly, by abstracting away from the dimensionality of the location entity, the schematic meaning that can be extracted from the with variants of these six
classes may be phrased ‘‘X acts upon Y by exerting force to a significantly
large portion of Y’’ as in Figure 16. This is the thematic core associated
with the with variant syntax.
Pinker (1989) and Gropen, Pinker, Hollander, and Goldberg (1991) describe these six classes, but they fail to notice that these six classes enter
into the alternation precisely because they have either a ‘covering’ semantics or a related meaning, in addition to a ‘putting’ semantics.
4.
4.1.
The di¤erences from lexical rule approaches
Derivation vs. non-derivation
Let us now compare my account with the previous analyses reviewed in
section 1. Pinker’s analysis as summarized in Figure 17 and my account
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
Verbs:
Thematic cores:
Syntactic frame:
‘spray1’
lexical rule
369
‘spray2’
substance moves in
surface is covered with
a mist
drops by moving mist
Move substance in a
Affect object in a
particular manner to
particular way by adding
an object
substance
V NP into/onto NP
V NP with NP
Figure 17. Lexical rule approach (adapted from Pinker 1989: 80)
L-meaning:
substance moves in a mist, and as a result the surface is
covered with drops by moving mist
P-meaning
Thematic cores:
‘spray1’
‘spray2’
substance moves in
surface is covered with
a mist
drops by moving mist
X acts upon Y, thereby
X acts upon Y by exerting
causing Y to go Z
force over the surface of
Y with Z
Syntactic frame:
NP V NP directional PP
NP V NP with NP
Figure 18. The L-meaning/P-meaning model
as in Figure 18 di¤er in two major points: the L-meaning/P-meaning distinction and the thematic core accorded to a with variant. In the ensuing
discussion, I will (almost exclusively) focus upon the first point, as this
will reveal a fundamental flaw in lexical rule approaches in general (see
Iwata 2002b for discussion on the second point).
As seen in Figure 17, Pinker derives spray the wall with paint from
spray paint onto the wall, not from spray. Similarly, Rappaport and Levin
(1988) derive load the truck with hay from load hay onto the truck, not
from load, as seen in 1.1. That is to say, they attempt to derive one Pmeaning from another, although what is actually going on is that a single
L-meaning gives rise to two P-meanings, an entirely di¤erent matter.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
370
S. Iwata
(29)
a.
my account
L-meaning
b.
lexical rule approach
sense1
P-meaning1 P-meaning2
(P-meaning1 )
)
sense2
(P-meaning2 )
Interestingly enough, Pinker says much the same:
Basically, it is a gestalt shift: one can interpret loading as moving a theme (e.g.,
hay) to a location (e.g., a wagon), but one can also interpret the same act in terms
of changing the state of a theme (the wagon), in this case from empty to full, by
means of moving something (the hay) into it. (Pinker 1989: 79)
If we substitute an L-meaning for the scene and P-meanings for two interpretations, then the above remarks make perfect sense; in the passage
‘‘one can interpret loading as’’ Pinker speaks of ‘‘loading’’, not of ‘‘loading hay onto the wagon’’. Also, in the passage ‘‘one can also interpret the
same act’’, ‘‘the same act’’ refers to the act of ‘‘loading’’, not of ‘‘loading
hay onto the wagon’’. Thus the L-meaning/P-meaning distinction is recognized, albeit implicitly. Consider further the following: ‘‘The constraints or criteria governing the locative alternation stem, to a first approximation, from the ability of a predicate to support this gestalt shift’’
(Pinker 1989: 79). Here ‘‘the ability of a predicate to support this gestalt
shift’’ is another way of saying that the predicate has a meaning potential
to be interpreted in two ways.
Pinker rightly recognizes locative alternation as a gestalt shift, but he is
mistaken in implementing this idea by means of a lexical extension. The
significance of this point is further appreciated by noting that a gestalt
shift means that objectively the same scene is open to two di¤erent interpretations. Recall celebrated examples of gestalt shift like ‘Rubin’s vase’
or ‘duck-rabbit’. In all of these cases, one and the same environmental input may receive two di¤erent interpretations.
environmental input
interpretation 1
interpretation 2
a vase
two faces
a duck
a rabbit
(30)
A gestalt shift does not in any way derive one of the interpretations from
the other.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
4.2.
371
An overall picture
The idea that a single L-meaning gives rise to two P-meanings is not new,
although not phrased exactly this way in the literature. Essentially the
same idea is to be found in Langacker (1987) and Goldberg (1995), whose
key terms find place in my account as in Figure 19.
Syntactic frames are associated with identifiable meanings, and this
pairing of form and meaning amounts to ‘construction’ in the sense of
Goldberg (1995). A verb can appear in a syntactic frame when its Lmeaning is compatible with the semantics of a construction. The verb
spray, whose L-meaning includes both ‘putting’ and ‘covering’, is thus capable of taking both into/onto and with forms. Which syntactic frame is
chosen is determined by which aspect of the L-meaning is profiled, this
process being a gestalt shift or ‘alternate construal of the same situation’
in the sense of Langacker (1987).
On my account, the locative alternation verbs are no di¤erent from
non-alternating verbs in their basic form-meaning correspondences. As
pointed out in 2.2., there are both a class of verbs that occur only as a
locative variant (e.g., pour) and a class of verbs that occur only as a with
variant (e.g., cover). The two classes are distinguished by the di¤erence in
their L-meanings. The L-meaning of pour, which specifies pure manner of
motion, only gives rise to a P-meaning associated with the into/onto form
(locative variant). By contrast, the L-meaning of cover gives rise to a Pmeaning associated with the with form (with variant) alone. Thus the possibility of alternation is entirely attributed to individual L-meanings.
Furthermore, this account has the advantage of circumventing the
problem posed by one of the putative derivations. As seen in section
1, neither Rappaport and Levin (1988) nor Pinker (1989) can o¤er a
L-meaning
alternate construal/
Gestalt shift
P-meaning
X acts upon Y, thereby
causing Y to go Z
P-meaning
X acts upon Y by exerting
force to a significantly large
portion of Y with Z
V NP directional PP
construction
V NP with NP
Figure 19. The L-meaning/P-meaning model and key terms in other theories
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
372
S. Iwata
plausible account of the derivation from the with variant. But since locative alternation is not a matter of deriving one variant from the other, no
lexical rules are needed in my account.5
4.3.
Application
The L-Meaning/P-Meaning distinction allows one to straightforwardly
account for the alternations of wrap and hit, which have been shown in
1.2 to be problematic for the means extension analysis of Rappaport and
Levin (1988) and Pinker (1989).
4.3.1.
(31)
Wrap.
a.
b.
c.
The verb wrap has three variants as in (31).
He wrapped shiny paper around a present.
He wrapped a present with paper.
He wrapped a present in paper.
My account for the locative alternation is readily applicable here: The Lmeaning of wrap is compatible with the semantics of each of the three
constructions underlying their respective forms. The in form is found with
verbs like plant or sow.
(32)
a.
b.
The workers planted the trees in the garden.
The workers planted the garden with (*the) trees. (Fraser 1971:
605)
The around form is found with verbs like coil, spin, twirl, whirl, and wind.
(33)
a.
b.
He coiled the chain around the pole.
*He coiled the pole with the chain. (Pinker 1989: 126)
And, of course, verbs like cover typically employ the with form. Thus the
alternation is described as in Figure 20.
The L-meaning of wrap is to fold a flexible object around another object, with the result that the flexible object conforms to part of the shape
of the enfolded object along two or more orthogonal dimensions. When
we focus upon an object folded around another object (i.e., paper), wrap
takes the around form. If, on the other hand, we focus upon the present,
two possibilities emerge. It is possible to regard the present as being covered with paper. But it is also possible to regard the present as being put
into the folded paper, for the L-meaning of wrap specifies that the paper
is larger than the enfolded object such that the folded paper can be construed as a kind of container:
Thus it is not wrapping when one installs shelf paper cut to the exact
size of the shelf, but it can be called wrapping if the paper extends beyond
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
373
L-meaning of wrap
To put around a flexible object
To cover the surface
To put an object
extended in two dimensions
of an object
into a layerlike medium
X acts upon Y, thereby
X acts upon Y by exerting
X acts upon Y, thereby
causing Y to go Z
force horizontally over the
causing Y to be in Z
surface of Y with Z
NP V NP around NP
NP V NP with NP
NP V NP in NP
Figure 20. Alternate construal of wrap
the edges of the shelf and is bent around them (Pinker 1989: 127). Again,
therefore, it is precisely the L-meaning that allows wrap to appear in the
three syntactic frames.
4.3.2. Hit. Verbs of physical contact like hit alternate as in (34), like
locative alternation verbs. Pinker (1989: 105) points out that this alternation is contingent upon the verb meaning.
(34)
a.
b.
I hit the bat against the wall.
[cf. I hit the wall with the bat]
She bumped the glass against the table.
Bill slapped the towel against the sink.
*I cut the knife against the bread.
[cf. I cut the bread with the knife]
*He split the ax against the log.
*Phil shattered the hammer against the glass.
*I broke a spoon against the egg.
*I touched my hand against the cat.
*I kissed my lips against hers. (Pinker 1989: 105)
Pinker observes that verbs of motion followed by contact can alternate,
but not verbs of motion followed by contact and a specific e¤ect (a cut,
a break, a split) or verbs of contact without motion (touch, kiss). The
with form found with verbs of physical contact is not strictly the same as
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
374
S. Iwata
the with form found with locative alternation verbs: The with phrase
names an instrument, not the substance added. It seems that the thematic
core is simply ‘X acts upon Y’.
Apart from this di¤erence, the alternation can be approached in a way
parallel to the locative alternation. Two constructions are at work here:
the ‘change of location’ sense in the against form and the ‘act upon’ sense
in the with form. Verbs of hitting, which specify both motion and contact
in their L-meanings, can fit into the semantics of either construction.
Consequently they can occur in either syntactic frame. By contrast, verbs
of breaking specify in their L-meanings a specific e¤ect, as well as motion
and contact, thus rendering the ‘act upon’ sense more salient. Consequently, they are compatible only with the semantics of ‘X acts upon Y’.
Verbs of touching simply lack the meaning component of change of location, so that they fit into only the semantics of ‘X acts upon Y’, too. This
supposition is confirmed by Dowty, who contrasts the classes of verbs
that take only the with form and those that take only the against form
(Dowty 1991: 596).
(35)
(36)
a. swat the boy with a stick
b. *swat the stick at/against the boy
Likewise: smack, wallop, swat, clobber, smite, etc.
a. *dash the wall with the water
b. dash the water against the wall
Likewise: throw, slam, bat, lob, loft, bounce, etc.
He further observes that verbs in (35) imply a pain-inflicting or punishing
action, but those in (36) are used only when the change of position of
the ball or projectile is important, not any e¤ect of the action upon the
location.
Thus the alternation hit enters into is described as in Figure 21.
L-meaning of hit
To attack
X acts upon Y
To move something against something else
X acts upon Y, thereby causing Y to go Z
NP V NP
NP V NP against NP
Figure 21. Alternate construal of hit
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
375
5. Means extension once again
While the means extension analysis of Rappaport and Levin (1988) and
Pinker (1989) is mistaken, it is nevertheless plausible at first sight. What
makes the means extension analysis look plausible? Furthermore, what
led both Rappaport and Levin and Pinker to adopt the means extension
analysis?
5.1.
Why means extension?
In the means extension analysis, the with variant subordinates the locative
variant. Rappaport and Levin (1988: 26) base this complex structure on
an entailment relation: Harry loaded the wagon with hay entails Harry
loaded hay onto the wagon, but not vice versa.
While the means extension analysis is one way to capture the entailment relation, it is not the only one. In my account, the two variants are
obtained by profiling a single scene di¤erently, depending upon whether
the locatum entity or the location entity is acted upon. What is crucial is
that one can mistakenly assume a temporal and causal order between the
two events thus obtained. Since our world knowledge tells us that one
first transfers bricks onto the truck, and then the truck becomes full, one
may be led to believe that the event denoted by the locative variant (i.e.,
transferring objects onto a container) temporally precedes that of the with
variant (i.e., the container being full), and that the latter cannot take
place without the former. Both Rappaport and Levin (1988) and Pinker
(1989) characterize the two variants in terms of the contrast between a
change of location and a change of state, and this characterization enhances this interpretation of the two variants, although the two events
are not strictly in a temporal/causal relation and their relation is one of
‘‘quasi-precedence’’ at best.6 This is the origin of the entailment relation
which Rappaport and Levin note.
The means extension analysis seems plausible, then, due to its similarity
to this quasi-precedence relation, which is intuitively applied between the
two variants. A means relation connects two distinct events, one of which
precedes the other both temporally and causally. With locative alternation verbs, the locatum being typically mass or multiplex entities, the activities denoted by the verbs tend to have some temporal duration: One
usually does not load the wagon with hay by transferring a load of hay
onto the wagon just once. Rather, repeated transferring activities are usually involved.7 Because of this temporal interval, the activity of transferring hay onto a wagon and that of filling the wagon are apparently temporally distinct from each other. By contrast, the activities of inscribing,
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
376
S. Iwata
presenting, and hitting do not take much time. For instance, since hitting
is a punctual action, it is rather di‰cult to regard hitting a stick against
the wall as being temporally distinct from hitting the wall with a stick.
This is why to say that loading the wagon with hay is brought about by
means of loading hay onto the wagon is more tolerable than to say that
hitting the wall with a stick is brought about by means of hitting a stick
against the wall.
5.2.
Why derive one from the other?
Why does Pinker formalize the locative alternation gestalt shift as a lexical derivation? First, Pinker assumes that semantic structures as employed in the generative lexical semantics literature are the only syntactically relevant aspects of meaning; thus, he ignores L-meanings, which fall
outside the realm of semantic structures. I argue, however, that Pinkerstyle semantic structures may well serve to capture P-meanings but not
L-meanings. Second, lexical items are natural sense categories and like
other such categories they are frequently (but mistakenly) represented by
members or subcategories, particularly by prototypical members, as Lako¤ (1987: 84) demonstrates in his discussion of a metonymic model. Since
P-meanings stand in a member-category relationship to their respective Lmeanings as shown in Figure 22, it is easy to confuse loading hay onto the
wagon, a member of the category load, with the category itself.8 This category error is partly understandable in that the verb load almost never appears without phrasal complements.
Pinker does not question the assumption that a relationship between
two variants implies that one is derived from the other. This assumption
in turn finds its roots in the classical notion of categorization that category members all share a ‘core’ of properties:9
classical categorization: All the entities that have a given property or collection of properties in common form a category. (Lako¤ 1987: 161)
Load
P-meaning2
P-meaning1
…
Figure 22. Load as a category
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
377
If one of the category members is taken as the core meaning itself, the
only relation that can hold between that variant and all others is a derivational one. The underlying logic is as follows: There are two variants of
load. The only way to relate them is to derive one from the other. Therefore, there must be lexical rules that do so. Yet as we have seen, relationships between variants need not depend upon one variant’s derivation
from another; instead, they may all derive from a common base.10
6. Constructional approach
So far I have contrasted my account with lexical rule approaches, alluding to its a‰nity with the Construction Grammar approach of Goldberg
(1995). From now on, I will compare my account with Goldberg’s
approach, dwelling on both similarities and di¤erences between them.11
6.1.
Goldberg 1995
Goldberg (1995) argues that constructions are form-meaning correspondences which exist independently of particular verbs, carry meaning, and
specify the syntactic structure. In each construction, the constructional
meaning is integrated with the verb meaning. Take put as an example,
which is integrated with the caused-motion construction as in Figure 23.
cause-move 3cause goal theme4 is the semantics associated directly
with the construction, while put 3putter, put.place, puttee4 is that of the
verb. The semantic roles associated with the construction (¼ argument
roles) are fused with those associated with the verb (¼ participant roles).
Thus the three participant roles of put are put in a correspondence with
the argument roles, resulting in the composite fused structure.
Now, Goldberg argues that the locative alternation can be accounted
for by understanding ‘‘a single verb meaning to be able to fuse with two
distinct constructions, the caused-motion construction and a causative-
Sem
CAUSE-MOVE
PUT
Syn
V
<cause
goal
<putter,
SUBJ
put.place,
OBL
theme>
puttee >
OBJ
Figure 23. Constructional meaning is integrated with the verb meaning—example put (following Goldberg 1995)
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
378
S. Iwata
construction plus with-adjunct’’ (Goldberg 1995: 179). The fusion of argument roles and participant roles is regulated by the two principles:
i.
ii.
The Semantic Coherence Principle: Only roles which are semantically
compatible can be fused.
The Correspondence Principle: Each participant role that is lexically
profiled and expressed must be fused with a profiled argument role
of the construction. If a verb has three participant roles, then one of
them may be fused with a nonprofiled argument role of a construction (Goldberg 1995: 50).
Crucially, the Correspondence Principle dictates that profiled participant
roles are fused with profiled argument roles. The definition of profiling
goes as follows: All and only obligatorily expressed participant roles are
lexically profiled; all and only argument roles which are expressed as direct grammatical relations are constructionally profiled.12 Goldberg
(1995: 176–77) illustrates how the fusion works as follows. Verbs like
slather require all three participant roles to be expressed: Both full variants of the alternation are acceptable as in (37), and none of the verb’s
participant roles may be left unexpressed as in (38).
(37)
(38)
a.
b.
a.
b.
c.
Sam slathered shaving cream onto his face.
Sam slathered his face with shaving cream.
*Sam slathered shaving cream.
*Sam slathered his face.
*Shaving cream slathered onto his face.
Thus slather has the following lexical entry, where profiled roles are indicated by boldface.
(39)
slather 3slatherer, thick-mass, target4
Now both the caused-motion construction and the causative-plus-withadjunct construction allow all three roles to be expressed, so there is no
problem satisfying the constraint that profiled roles are obligatory. Since
there are three profiled participants, one may be fused with a nonprofiled
argument role, in accord with the Correspondence Principle. The fusion
of slather with the two constructions also meets the Semantic Coherence
Principle. The three participant roles are compatible with the causedmotion construction’s argument roles, in that the slatherer can be construed as a cause, the thick-mass as a type of theme since it undergoes a
change of location, and the target as a type of goal-path. They are compatible with the causative-plus-with-adjunct construction’s argument roles
as well, for the target can be construed as a type of patient. Goldberg
claims that slather is thus compatible with both of the two constructions.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
6.2.
379
Similarities
My account and Goldberg’s constructional analysis have much in common. First and foremost, in Goldberg’s analysis the two variants are
claimed to come from a single verb meaning as in (40), entirely parallel
to my analysis.
(40)
load 3loader, container, loaded-theme4
load bricks onto the wagon
load the wagon with bricks
Therefore, Goldberg’s account does not su¤er from the number of problems facing lexical rule approaches. In fact, the parallelism between the
two accounts goes deeper than the treatment of one particular phenomenon (i.e., locative alternation). Although Figure 23 might seem di¤erent
from my model, they convey essentially the same idea, and it is possible
to translate one representation into the other. Figure 24 gives us an idea
of the correspondences between the elements in the two models.
The constructional meaning corresponds to the thematic core; the verb
meaning to the L-meaning; the syntactic level of grammatical functions to
the syntactic frame; and the fused composite structure to the P-meaning.
Another thing worth mentioning at this point is that both accounts
recognize the importance of frame semantic knowledge (Fillmore 1975,
1977, 1982). Goldberg argues that the verb meanings must be frame semantic meaning, i.e., they must include reference to a background frame
rich with world and cultural knowledge. Goldberg illustrates the necessity
of rich frame semantic knowledge with examples of caused-motion
construction.
L-meaning
PUT
< putter, put.place, puttee >
P-meaning
Thematic core
CAUSE-MOVE
Syntactic frame
SUBJ
OBL
<cause
goal
theme>
OBJ
Figure 24. Correspondences between models by Goldberg (1995) and Iwata
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
380
S. Iwata
(41)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Joe walked into the room with the help of a cane.
?Joe marched into the room with the help of a cane.
??Joe rolled into the room with the help of a cane.
*Joe careened into the room with the help of a cane. (Goldberg
1995: 30)
In order to predict the distinction between (41a) and (41d), for instance,
it is not enough to know that walk and careen are motion verbs with a
manner component. Rather, reference to the particulars of manner is
essential.
The same thing can be said of the L-meaning in my account. For instance, the L-meaning of spray specifies that a substance is moved in a
mist in the direction of a particular object, resulting in the substance’s being deposited on the object, while that of pour specifies merely that a substance is moved downward in a stream. Aspects of verb meaning like
these tend to be neglected and relegated to ‘pragmatics’ on the ground
that only the skeletal meanings like x act or x cause y to go are grammatically relevant (Pinker 1989) and such world knowledge is grammatically irrelevant. However, it is precisely these aspects of verb meaning
that explain why spray, but not pour, enters into locative alternation.
Thus all semantic knowledge associated with verbs must be recognized
in order to represent their grammar. It is true that frame semantic knowledge is di‰cult to concisely paraphrase, let alone formally represent. But
this di‰culty should not be an excuse for neglecting significant portions
of verb meaning.
One apparent di¤erence between my account and Goldberg’s concerns
the contribution of constructions. Goldberg’s Construction Grammar approach primarily aims to capture form-meaning correspondences that fall
outside of lexical encoding. For instance, consider (42).
(42)
a.
b.
Sally baked her a cake.
He wiped the crumbs o¤ the table.
In (42a), the sense of transfer and the syntactic frame [NP V NP NP] are
not lexically specified by bake, but contributed by the ditransitive construction. Similarly, in (42b) it is the caused-motion construction, not the
lexical entry of wipe, that defines the sense of motion and the associated
syntactic frame. Clearly, in these cases constructions provide syntactic
and semantic properties that are not lexically encoded in the verb.
By contrast, my account of locative alternation is concerned with what
has traditionally been called subcategorization frames and their semantics, i.e., syntactic and semantic information lexically encoded. Both putting and covering are directly encoded in the L-meaning of verbs that
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
381
enter into the alternation. Here constructions simply highlight aspects of
verb meaning that are already there.
But this just indicates that with the locative alternation the encoded
verb meaning matches the constructional meaning. My account naturally
extends to cases like (42) on the assumption that ‘‘all semantic knowledge
associated with verbs’’ must be recognized, as noted above. Boas (2000)
argues that in order to account for resultatives, it is necessary to admit
into verb meanings two types of frame semantic information. The first,
‘‘on-stage’’ information, includes information about the prototypical
participants in an event. This is the information generally regarded as encoded verb meanings, corresponding to my L-meaning. On the other
hand, ‘‘o¤-stage’’ information is the kind of world knowledge one is subconsciously aware of when encountering a word in discourse, but usually
does not bother to mention. Boas claims that what is attributed to construction in Goldberg’s account of resultatives is strictly due to the ‘‘o¤stage’’ information of the verb (Boas 2000: 284–85).
Following Boas’s conception of verb meanings, the scene of wipe can
be described as in Figure 25. The ‘‘on-stage’’ information of wipe specifies
surface contact alone, but the o¤-stage information tells us that the wiping activity is likely to lead to removing an entity from a location.
If the verbal scene is limited to the on-stage information, the verb is
compatible with the simple transitive construction as in Figure 26(a). But
constructions can impose their skeletal syntax and schematic semantics in
a top-down fashion, and in order to meet the demands of the constructional meaning, the verb’s frame semantic scene may be extended.13 The
extended wiping scene, including the o¤-stage information, matches the
caused-motion construction as in Figure 26b.
Once an extended semantic frame has been built, therefore, the system
works on the same principles as before.
To recapitulate, my account and Goldberg’s analysis are fundamentally the same: versions of Construction Grammar to be contrasted with
lexical rule approaches.14
on-stage
off-stage
information
information
Figure 25. On-stage and o¤-stage information of wipe
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
382
S. Iwata
To rub a surface
X acts upon Y
NP V NP
(a)
To remove something from a surface
X acts upon Y, thereby causing Y to go Z
NP V NP directional PP
(b)
Figure 26. Two versions of wipe
6.3.
Problems of Goldberg 1995
Despite the fundamental similarities, the two accounts crucially di¤er as
to (1) how to represent the verb meaning, and (2) how a verb and a construction are integrated. In my account, the verb meaning is a Fillmorean
scene, and the integration of a verb with a construction is simply based
upon semantic compatibility. On the other hand, Goldberg represents
the verb meaning as a list of participant roles, and the integration of a
verb with a construction is identified as the fusion of semantic roles,
which is regulated by the Semantic Coherence Principle and the Correspondence Principle.
Since both of the accounts acknowledge the necessity for semantic
compatibility between verbs and constructions, what di¤erentiates Goldberg’s theory from mine is that it is a Correspondence Principle-based
account, which makes use of lexical profiling (of participant roles) and
constructional profiling (of argument roles). Herein lie a number of problems, which will be taken up below.
6.3.1. Is the Correspondence Principle really necessary? First, it is questionable whether the Correspondence Principle plays as great a role in
integrating verbs with constructions as Goldberg’s presentation will have
us believe. Although which of the two principles is more essential is
not made explicit in Goldberg (1995), a close look at locative alternation
verbs like load suggests the primacy of the Semantic Coherence Principle
over the Correspondence Principle. But before showing this point, I need
to somewhat modify Goldberg’s representation for load. Goldberg says
that it is not clear whether all roles of load need be expressed. While
the loader and container roles are obligatory as in (44a) and (44b), the
loaded-theme role need not be overtly expressed as in (44c).
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
(43)
(44)
a.
b.
a.
b.
c.
383
She loaded the wagon with the hay.
She loaded the hay onto the wagon.
*The hay loaded onto the truck.
??Sam loaded the hay.
Sam loaded the truck.
Goldberg claims that the loaded-theme role is still profiled, but optionally
omissible if licensed by context to receive a definite interpretation. This is
indicated by square brackets.
(45)
load 3loader, container, [loaded-theme]4
However, it is not the theme role but the container role that can be
contextually deleted. While Goldberg marks (44b) with a question mark,
it is acceptable as an elliptical form of Sam loaded the hay onto the truck.
In contrast, (44c) does not sound elliptical. Pinker (1989) makes a similar
observation: ‘‘Thus He loaded the gun sounds like a complete thought; He
loaded the bullets is grammatical but feels like a truncated version of He
loaded the bullets into the gun’’ (Pinker 1989: 125). Accordingly, the container role should be put into square brackets and the theme role is not
profiled as in (46).
(46)
load 3loader, [container], loaded-theme4
Let us now consider how (46) interacts with the two principles to yield the
two variants in (47).
(47)
a.
b.
Sam loaded the hay [onto the truck].
Sam loaded the truck (with the hay).
Recall that the Correspondence Principle says that if a participant role is
profiled, then it should appear in a prominent position. If we adhered to
the Correspondence Principle rigidly, then we would expect the container
role of load to always map to direct object position. The with variant in
(46b) would be straightforwardly accounted for under this conception of
the Correspondence Principle. But the locative variant in (46a) would be
problematic, for now the two principles are in conflict: The Correspondence Principle would require the container role to appear in direct object
position, but the Semantic Coherence Principle would prevent the container role from being fused with the theme role of the caused motion
construction, since it is not the container but the loaded-theme that is in
motion. And the fact is that the Semantic Coherence Principle wins, resulting in the fusion of the loaded-theme role with the theme role of the
caused-motion construction. Given that the Semantic Coherence Principle takes precedence over the Correspondence Principle when they are in
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
384
S. Iwata
conflict, the latter can be said to play only a subsidiary role, to say the
least.15
6.4.
What does lexical profiling tell us?
Next, while Goldberg (1995: 176–79) attempts to show that her account
works well with all of the five subclasses of locative alternation verbs
shown below, a closer look reveals that these alternating verbs do not behave uniformly with respect to lexical profiling as defined by Goldberg.16
i.
Slather-class: Simultaneous forceful contact and motion of a mass
against a surface: slather, smear, brush, dab, daub, plaster, rub,
smear, smudge, spread, streak . . .
ii. Heap-class: Vertical arrangement on a horizontal surface: heap, pile,
stack . . .
iii. Spray-class: Force is imparted to a mass, causing ballistic motion in
a specified spatial distribution along a trajectory: spray, spatter,
splash, splatter, inject, sprinkle, squirt . . .
iv. Cram-class: A mass is forced into a container against the limit of its
capacity: cram, pack, crowd, jam, stu¤ . . .
v. Load-class: A mass of a size, shape, or type defined by the intended
use of a container (and not purely by its geometry) is put into the
container, enabling it to accomplish its function: load, pack (of suitcases), stock (of shelves) . . . (Goldberg 1995: 176)
Goldberg claims that verbs of the heap-class must have three profiled
participant roles as in (50), since none of the verb’s roles may be left unexpressed as in (49).
(48)
(49)
(50)
a. Pat heaped mash potatoes onto her plate.
b. Pat heaped her plate with mash potatoes.
a. *Pat heaped mash potatoes.
b. *Pat heaped her plate.
c. *The mash potatoes heaped onto her plate.
heap 3heaper, location, heaped-goods4
But pile, a member of the heap-class, allows the location role to be
omitted as in (52a), and therefore should have the lexical entry as in (53).
(51)
(52)
(53)
a. He piled the books onto the shelf.
b. He piled the shelf with the books.
a. He piled the books.
b. *He piled the shelf.
pile 3piler, location, piled-goods4
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
385
Similarly, verbs of the cram-class are claimed to have three profiled roles
as in (56), but stu¤, another member of this class, behaves di¤erently in
this regard as in (58).
(54)
(55)
(56)
(57)
(58)
(59)
a. Pat crammed pennies into the jar.
b. Pat crammed the jar with pennies.
a. *Pat crammed the pennies.
b. *Pat crammed the jar.
c. *The pennies crammed into the jar.
cram 3crammer, location, crammed4
a. He stu¤ed the breadcrumbs into the turkey.
b. He stu¤ed the turkey with the breadcrumbs.
a. *He stu¤ed the breadcrumbs.
b. He stu¤ed the turkey.
stu¤ 3stu¤er, container, stu¤ed-theme4
And as seen above, the entry of load should be (46), where two roles are
supposed to be lexically profiled. But pack, a member of the load-class,
allows two roles to be unexpressed as in (61), and therefore should have
only one profiled role as in (62).
(60)
(61)
(62)
a. John packed books into the box.
b. John packed the box with books.
a. John packed the books.
b. John packed the box.
pack 3packer, container, packed-theme4
In short, di¤erent alternating verbs behave di¤erently with respect to the
obligatoriness of an argument, which indicates that lexical profiling as defined by Goldberg has nothing to do with the possibility of locative alternation at all.
6.5.
The proliferation of lexical entries17
Goldberg assumes that verb meaning is defined against a frame semantic
scene, and states that ‘‘part of a verb’s frame semantics includes the delimitation of participant roles’’ (Goldberg 1995: 43). In her view, the basic
meaning of a verb consists in the number and type of participant roles in
the frame semantics associated with the verb, which are determined by interpreting the verb in gerundial form (‘‘No -ing occurred.’’) as follows.
(63)
a.
b.
No sneezing occurred.
(one-participant interpretation)
No rumbling occurred.
(one-participant [sound emission] interpretation)
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
386
S. Iwata
c.
d.
No hammering occurred.
(one-participant [sound emision] or two-participant [impact]
interpretation)
No giving occurred.
(three-participant interpretation) (Goldberg 1995: 43–44)
However, identifying verb meaning thus with a list of participant roles,
rather than directly with a scene, can lead to proliferating verb senses.
Thus ‘‘No hammering occurred’’ allows for both a one-participant (sound
emission) interpretation and a two-participant (impact) interpretation as
in (63c). We can ensure that there is only one verb hammer by understanding a hammering scene to be interpretable either way, but Goldberg’s method of representation forces her to posit two ‘‘basic meanings’’
for hammer. Goldberg states that ‘‘these polysemous senses can be explicitly related by appealing to the frame semantics associated with each of
them’’ (Goldberg 1995: 44). But her lists of participant roles alone tell us
nothing about the relatedness between the senses.
A similar problem crops up with lease and rent, both of which can occur with either the tenant or the landlord being in subject position.
(64)
a.
b.
(65)
a.
b.
Cecile leased the apartment from Ernest.
(tenant, property)
Ernest leased the apartment to Cecile.
(landlord, property)
Cecile rented the apartment from Ernest.
(tenant, property)
Ernest rented the apartment to Cecile.
(landlord, property)
It seems straightforward to capture the relatedness between the two variants by understanding a leasing scene or a renting scene to be open to two
alternate interpretations, parallel to locative alternation. In order to implement this idea in Goldberg’s theory, however, lease should have only
one profiled role, the property. And in actuality, lease cannot occur with
only the property role.
(66)
*The property leased.
Goldberg therefore concludes that it is necessary to posit two distinct
senses of the verb:
(67)
a.
b.
lease1 3tenant property landlord4
lease2 3tenant property landlord4 (Goldberg 1995: 56)
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
387
In other words, Goldberg is forced to posit two distinct senses for lease
and rent by her definition of lexical profiling alone. But what is the point
of proliferating verb senses by adhering to lexical profiling, which has
been shown above to have nothing to do with the possibility of argument
structure alternations?
7. Semantic compatibility between verb meaning and constructional
meaning
Conceivably, it is not Goldberg’s intent to create the impression that an
array of participant roles is all that is syntactically relevant. Rather, the
participant roles should be a shorthand way to capture the rich frame
semantics associated with the roles, for Goldberg explicitly claims that
‘the entirety of the frame semantic knowledge [associated with the verb]
must be recognized’ (Goldberg 1995: 30). But what Goldberg actually
does is simply to match argument roles with participant roles as detached from the scene in which they appear, thereby failing to notice
that spray enters into the alternation precisely because a spraying scene
can be construed either as a putting activity or as a covering activity.
This seriously downplays the semantic compatibility between verbs and
constructions.
In what follows, I will show that by paying close attention to the particulars of a scene, my analysis can give a coherent account of alternation
phenomena.
7.1.
Spray once again
My analysis of the locative alternation in section 3 started with a case
study of spray, which well illustrates that a given scene can be construed
either as a putting event or as a covering event. Interestingly enough, this
verb can also be used to illustrate the superiority of my analysis over a
Correspondence Principle-based account. Spray exhibits an intransitive
variant as in (68c), besides a locative variant in (68a) and a with variant
in (68b).
(68)
a.
b.
c.
Bob sprayed paint onto the wall.
Bob sprayed the wall with paint.
Water sprayed onto the lawn.
(locative variant)
(with variant)
(intransitive variant)
Within Goldberg’s framework, these three variants are accommodated
by assuming that the target and liquid roles, but not the sprayer role, are
profiled.
(69)
spray 3sprayer, target, liquid4
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
388
S. Iwata
Her account goes as follows:
The fact that the target can be construed as a type of patient, in that the entity
which is sprayed can be construed as totally a¤ected, allows spray’s roles to fuse
with the argument roles of the causative construction. In particular, spray is licensed to occur in the caused-motion construction since the sprayer can be construed as a cause, the liquid as a type of theme, and the target as a type of goalpath. Similarly, the fact that the agent is not obligatory (i.e., non-profiled) allows
spray to occur in the intransitive motion construction instantiated by (68c). (Goldberg 1995: 179)
We have already seen that both the locative and with variants can be accounted for by semantic compatibility between the spraying scene and
two constructions. My account naturally extends to the intransitive variant as well.
First, notice that the contrast between (68a) and (68c) has been extensively discussed in the literature under the heading of causative alternation (See Levin and Rappaport 1991, 1995; Kiparksy 1997; Maruta
1998; Matsumoto 2000; McKoon and Macfarland 2000 and references
cited therein). Very briefly, my account of causative alternation goes as
follows, parallel to that of locative alternation: A given verb may exhibit
both an intransitive and a transitive variant if its conventional scene can
be compatible with both a thematic core associated with an intransitive
syntax and a thematic core associated with a transitive syntax. In order for
this to be possible, a frame semantic scene associated with the verb must
be interpretable as consisting of a causative event and an internal event
such that the latter has a high degree of autonomy and can therefore be
conceived of on its own, independent of an external causer (Iwata 2002a).
Now some locative alternation verbs enter into causative alternation
(e.g., splash, spray), and some do not (e.g., smear, daub). What di¤erentiates the two types is whether the manner encoded by each verb specifies
the movement of the theme or pertains to the agent, as pointed out by
Hale and Keyser (1997, 1999). Thus the manner of spraying is the manner of a substance’s movement (i.e., going in a mist). It is therefore possible to conceive of this movement alone as a spontaneous event, as separate from an external causer. In contrast, the manner of smearing pertains
to the manual movement (i.e., manipulation of a brush back and forth) of
the person engaged in the act of smearing, so that it is not possible to conceive of a substance’s movement as unfolding on its own, independently
of a human causer.
(70)
a.
b.
*Mud smeared on the wall.
They smeared mud on the wall.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
389
Thus the intransitive variant of spray can be straightforwardly accounted
for without using the notion of lexical profiling in the sense of Goldberg.
Not only is the lexical profiling marking in (69) not necessary; it makes
a wrong prediction. Croft (1998: 43) observes that spray, along with a
couple of other locative alternation verbs, may also occur transitively
with the theme role as the direct object.
(71)
a.
b.
c.
The broken fire hydrant sprayed water all afternoon.
The mudpots spattered mud just as we arrived.
The guests scattered rice as the bride and groom left the
church.
This is a counter-example to the Correspondence Principle, in that the
profiled target role of spray does not map onto a profiled position in
(71a).18 What needs to be noted, however, is that in (71a) spray is construed as a substance emission verb and thereby acquires the syntax of a
simple transitive construction, parallel to emit. According to Croft, (71a)
is possible because our world knowledge allows us to construe a spraying
event as a substance emission event.
Other verbs in the spray/load class do not occur in the simple transitive construction, but that is due to the semantic unnaturalness of their construal as a substance emission event or a throwing event. (Croft 1998: 43)
Thus the simple transitive variant of spray in (71a) is construed as instantiating a construction di¤erent from the one dealing with the locative
variant of spray in (68a). Therefore, even a counter-example to the Correspondence Principle can be explained away by noting that the spraying
scene can be interpreted as a substance emission event as well.
Consequently, the four variants of spray can be ascribed to four di¤erent construals of a single scene. The L-meaning of spray specifies that
someone sends a liquid in a mist or fine droplets and thereby covers a surface to which it has been applied. As already seen in Section 2, this scene
can receive two alternate interpretations. If we focus upon the movement
of a liquid, we get a locative variant (Bob sprayed paint onto the wall ); if,
on the other hand, we focus upon the surface, we get a with variant (Bob
sprayed the wall with paint) as in Figure 27a (See Note 3 again); furthermore, if the movement of a liquid onto a surface is construed as an autonomous event without the intervention of an external agent, we get an intransitive variant (Water sprayed onto the lawn) as in Figure 27b; and if
we focus upon the emission of a substance, spray ends up in a simple
transitive frame (The broken fire hydrant sprayed water) as in Figure
27c.19
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
390
S. Iwata
spraying scene
Bob sprayed the wall with paint
Bob sprayed paint onto the wall
(a)
(b) Water sprayed onto the lawn.
(c) The broken fire hydrant sprayed water.
Figure 27. Construals of the four variants of spray
7.2.
Pack
The verb pack also enters into locative alternation as in (72). Within
Goldberg’s theory, the alternation of pack will be putatively explained
by the lexical entry in (74), which is based on (73).20
(72)
(73)
(74)
a. John packed books into the box.
b. John packed the box with books.
a. John packed the books.
b. John packed the box.
pack1 3packer, goods, container4
Interestingly enough, pack may occur in the two syntactic frames
in (75) as well. A conceivable way to handle these two variants within
Goldberg’s theory is to posit another lexical entry in (77) on the basis
of (76) (% indicates that the sentence is unacceptable with the intended
interpretation).
(75)
(76)
(77)
a. He packed the newspaper around china.
b. He packed the china in newspaper.
a. %He packed the newspaper.
b. %He packed the china.
pack2 3packer, goods, sheet4
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
391
L-meaning of pack
pack the newspaper
pack the china
around the china
in newspaper
pack books
into the box
pack the box
with books
Figure 28. Construals of the four variants of pack
Thus the two lexical entries in (74) and (77) supposedly account for all the
four variants of pack, and there is no problem theory-internally. But a
question that arises is why pack requires two di¤erent entries, unlike other
locative alternation verbs, as well as how the two packs are semantically
compatible with the four syntactic frames. To answer this question, it is
necessary, after all, to refer to the full frame semantic content of packing,
as I am going to do.
The L-meaning of pack contains an eventuality that consists of putting
something into a container and enclosing it. But since the act of packing
is often understood relative to a scenario of sending something (such as
luggage or boxes), the L-meaning contains another preceding eventuality.
That is, one quite often puts paper around an object and covers it, typically so as to protect that object during transit. The entirety of this scene
gives rise to the four variants noted above.
7.3.
Spread
The verb spread enters into locative alternation.21
(78)
a.
b.
He spread butter on the bread.
He spread the bread with butter.
Again, Goldberg would posit the lexical entry in (80), for neither the
theme nor the goal role may stand as sole complement, unless (79a) is interpreted as a contextually deleted version of (78a) (# indicates that the
sentence is acceptable only as a contextually deleted version).
(79)
(80)
a. #He spread butter.
b. *He spread the bread.
spread 3spreader, semi-liquid, [target]4
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
392
S. Iwata
Figure 29. Reflexive trajectory schema for core component of spread
But simply matching role labels does not allow us to account for the fact
that the alternation is not always possible. Thus in (81) only the locative
variant is permitted.
(81)
a.
b.
He spread a blanket over the sleeping child.
*He spread the sleeping child with a blanket.
My analysis of spread is based upon two leading ideas. First, the contrast between (78) and (81) is to be attributed to the di¤erence between
the two scenes described. Second, unlike other alternating verbs seen so
far, spread does not have in its inherent meaning the sense of adding a
substance to something.22 Rather, spread contains as its core component
the sense of a semi-liquid becoming progressively larger in all directions.
In the literature this enlargement process has been analyzed by means of
a reflexive trajectory (Lindner 1982, 1983; Lako¤ 1987).
(82)
The butter spread out.
This image-schematic structure, along with the scenes into which this
image-schema can be successfully integrated, is included in the L-meaning
of spread.23 In contrast, with verbs like spray or load, the L-meaning can
be identified with a scene (or a sequence of scenes in the case of pack).24
9
image schema>
=
(83)
>
;
scene (¼ L-meaning)
scene
P-meaning
P-meaning
Thematic core
Thematic core
Syntactic frame
Syntactic frame
(a) spray
(b) spread
L-Meaning
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
393
Image-schema:
Scene:
Figure 30. Image schema integrated into scene for buttering
buttering scene
spread butter on the bread
Figure 31. Interpretation of buttering scene with focus on the substance (butter)
Now the above image-schematic structure can be integrated into a buttering scene as in Figure 30.
Force is applied to a semi-liquid, and as a result the semi-liquid comes
to occupy a progressively larger area on a surface. This scene can be construed as compatible with the thematic core ‘X acts upon Y, thereby causing Y to go Z’, as in Figure 31.
It can also be construed as a covering event: As the butter is spread on
the bread, the bread becomes progressively covered. Hence, spread fits the
thematic core ‘X acts upon Y by exerting force horizontally over the surface of Y with Z’ and appears in the syntactic frame [NP V NP with NP]
as in Figure 32 (but see Note 21).
Now let us return to (81), where the image-schema of spread is integrated into a scene di¤erently. Indeed spreading a blanket over a child
is an activity that ends up covering the child. Crucially, however, the
child is not covered in a ‘‘spreading fashion’’. Unlike the buttering process, the blanket spreading does not extend in tandem with the child
getting covered. Rather, one spreads the blanket and then covers the
child with it.25 Consequently, this scene cannot be deemed as a covering
activity.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
394
S. Iwata
buttering scene
spread the bread with butter
Figure 32. Interpretation of buttering scene with focus on the surface (bread)
Figure 33. Schematic representation of spreading a blanket over a child
This line of reasoning is applicable to the following cases as well. The
spreading activity is coextensive with the covering activity in (84), but
not in (85)–(87).
(84)
(85)
(86)
(87)
a.
b.
a.
b.
a.
b.
a.
b.
He spread glue on the paper.
He spread the paper with glue.
He spread the coat over the bed.
*He spread the bed with the coat.
He spread a map on the bed.
*He spread the bed with a map.
He spread the contents on the table.
?*He spread the table with the contents.
Thus it is semantic compatibility between a scene and a relevant thematic
core that ultimately decides whether the with variant is possible or not.
But the same e¤ect cannot possibly be achieved by simply matching role
labels.
To recapitulate, then, my account can explain causative alternation
without using ‘lexical profiling’ and handle a counterexample to the
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
395
Correspondence Principle (7.1.), captures the relatedness between the two
senses of pack (7.2.), and explains when and why spread enters into locative alternation (7.3.). Recall also that it is questionable whether the
Correspondence Principle and lexical profiling as defined by Goldberg
are really necessary (6.3.1. and 6.3.2.), and that with certain verbs (e.g.,
hammer, lease, and rent) Goldberg is forced to proliferate senses for
purely theory-internal reasons (6.3.3.), which is not necessary in my account.26 Thus compared with Goldberg’s Correspondence Principle-based
account, my analysis is simpler (semantic compatibility alone is su‰cient), more e¤ective (no need to proliferate verb senses), and transparent
(L-meanings form natural meaning categories with P-meanings as their
members). This is definitely a great step toward constructing a linguistic
theory doing away with unnecessary stipulations (cf. Croft 2001).27
8. Locative alternation involving morphologically complex verbs
My account is valid for the locative alternation in English, where there is
no evidence for directionality between the locative and with variants. But
does it work well for the locative alternations in other languages as well?
In this section I will examine what my account has to say about locative
alternations in other languages.28
8.1.
Apparent cases of derivation
It has been reported in the literature on locative alternation that in several
languages the verb is morphologically complex in one of the variants, a
clear indication of morphological derivation. Thus in Japanese while
verbs like nuru (‘to smear’) do exhibit two variants, parallel to the English
locative alternation, such locativizable verbs are very small in number.
(88)
a.
b.
penki o
kabe ni nuru
paint acc wall on smear
‘smear paint on the wall’
kabe o
penki de
nuru
wall acc paint with smear
‘smear the wall with paint’ (Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny
1985: 5)
Most of the Japanese counterparts for English locative alternation verbs
occur in only one of the variants, i.e., the locative variant.29
(89)
a.
penki o
kabe ni
paint ACC wall onto
‘spray paint onto the wall’
fukitsukeru
spray
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
396
S. Iwata
b.
(90)
a.
b.
(91)
a.
b.
(92)
a.
b.
*kabe o
penki de
fukitsukeru
wall
ACC paint with spray
‘spray the wall with paint’
rooka
ni hako o
tsumiageru
corridor in boxes ACC pile
‘pile boxes in the corridor’
*rooka
o
hako de
tsumiageru
corridor ACC boxes with pile
‘pile the corridor with boxes’
hon
o
hondana ni
tsumekomu
books ACC shelves
into cram
‘cram books into the shelves’
*hondana o
hon
de
tsumekomu
shelves
ACC books with cram
‘cram the shelves with books’
hoshikusa o
niguruma ni
tsumu
hay
ACC wagon
onto load
‘load hay onto the wagon’
*niguruma o
hoshikusa de
tsumu
wagon
ACC hay
with load
‘load the wagon with hay’
Interestingly enough, maku (‘to sprinkle’), which does not occur in one
of the two syntactic frames as in (93), appears in that frame when accompanied by tsukusu (‘to exhaust’) as in (94), as Fukui, Miyagawa and
Tenny (1985) observe.30
(93)
(94)
a.
mizu o
hodoo
ni maku
water ACC sidewalk on sprinkle
‘sprinkle water on the sidewalk’
b. *hodoo
o
mizu de
maku
sidewalk ACC water with sprinkle
‘sprinkle the sidewalk with water’
hodoo
o
mizu de
maki tsukusu
sidewalk ACC water with sprinkle-up
‘sprinkle up the sidewalk with water’
(Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 11–12)
These facts are summarized as follows. Japanese has two syntactic frames,
one of which marks the theme NP with an accusative marker o as in (95a)
(locative variant), and the other of which o-marks the goal NP as in (95b)
(de variant).
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
(95)
a.
b.
397
NP1 o NP2 ni V
‘V NP1 onto NP2 ’
NP2 o NP1 de V
‘V NP2 with NP1 ’
Most of the verbs occur only in one of the variants. But some verbs may
appear in the de variant when they combine with tsukusu to form a complex unit.
(96)
a.
b.
*NP2 o NP1 de V
‘V NP2 with NP1 ’
NP2 o NP1 de V-tsukusu
‘V NP2 with NP1 ’
Similar phenomena have been reported in such languages as Hungarian, German, Dutch, and Russian (See Moravcsik 1978; De Groot 1984;
Ackerman 1992; Levin and Rappaport 1995, 1998; Brinkmann 1997; Michaelis and Ruppenhofer 2001, among others). Thus in these languages
the locative alternation is accompanied by a morphological derivation,
which seems to be totally incompatible with my analysis.
8.2.
Locative alternation in Japanese
I concede that my account may not be directly applicable to locative alternations in all languages, for what have been called ‘locative alternation’ across languages in the literature may not be a homogeneous phenomenon after all. Nevertheless, I argue that the basic insight of my
analysis allows us to give a revealing account of locative alternation in
Japanese.
In analyzing the Japanese data, one should be aware that tsukusu attaches to a lexical verb rather than to a VP. That is, the lexical verb alone
combines with tsukusu and the resulting complex unit appears in a syntactic frame for the de variant as in (97a), rather than that the VP as a whole
first combines with tsukusu and that the syntactic frame then changes into
another one (before anyone knows) as in (97b).
(97)
a.
b.
[maki-tsukusu]
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
NP2 o NP1 de [V]
[NP1 o NP2 ni maku]-tsukusu ! [NP2 o NP1 de maku]tsukusu
This means that tsukusu a¤ects the meaning of a lexical verb (L-meaning)
rather than that of a phrasal constituent (P-meaning). Once we realize
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
398
S. Iwata
L-meaning of maku
To scatter a liquid over a surface
X acts upon Y, thereby causing Y to go Z
NP o NP ni V
Figure 34. Interpretation of Japanese maku—one variant with focus on substance
this point, my account is straightforward. The verb maku means that a
liquid is scattered over a surface. The surface may get completely covered, but need not. One can do the act of maku by sprinkling only a small
amount of liquid over a small area, as in (98).
(98)
niwa-no-hashi
ni sukoshi-no-mizuo-maku
garden-GEN-edge on little-GEN-waterACC-sprinkle
‘sprinkle little water on the edge of the garden’
On the assumption that Japanese has a system of form–meaning correspondence which is very similar to that of English, the L-meaning of
maku is compatible with the thematic core of ‘X acts upon Y, thereby
causing Y to go Z’ but not that of ‘X acts upon Y by exerting force horizontally over the surface of Y with Z.’ Accordingly maku appears only in
the locative variant as in Figure 34.
In contrast, with the complex unit maki-tsukusu, tsukusu contributes
the meaning of ‘to exhaust’ to that of maku. One possible interpretation
that arises is that the surface exhaustively undergoes the act of maku.
This is in accord with our real world knowledge that one may send the
substance in a mist back and forth so that the whole surface gets covered.
Consequently maki-tsukusu can express a scene that is interpretable as a
covering event, as in Figure 35, and can therefore occur in the de variant
frame.
And this maki-tsukusu cannot be followed by a continuation indicating
that some part of the surface is not covered, as in (99b).
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
399
L-meaning of maki-tsukusu
Figure 35. Interpretation of Japanese maki-tsukusu
(99)
joro
o
tsukatte niwa
o
mizu de
watering pot ACC by.using garden ACC water with
maki-tsukushita
sprinkle-up
‘I sprinkled the garden with water by using a watering pot.’
a. joro
ni
wa
mada mizu ga
watering pot LOC TOP still
water NOM
nokotte-iru.
left-be
‘Some water is still left in the watering pot.’
b. *niwa ni
wa
mada mizu ga
kakatte-inai
garden LOC TOP still
water NOM pour-NEG
tokoro ga
aru
place
NOM be
‘Part of the garden is still left unwatered.’
8.3.
Further applicability of this analysis
This kind of analysis seems readily applicable to the locative alternation
in German. It has been observed in the literature (Brinkmann 1997; Michaelis and Ruppenhofer 2001) that in German quite a large number of
locative verbs occur in the locative variant frame alone, but when prefixed with be-, they appear in the with variant frame as in (100).
(100)
a.
b.
c.
Die Vandalen spritzten Farbe auf
das
the vandals
sprayed paint onto the
‘The vandals sprayed paint onto the car.’
*Die Vandalen spritzten das Auto mit
the
vandals
sprayed the car
with
‘The vandals sprayed the car with paint.’
Die Vandalen bespritzten das Auto mit
the vandals
be-sprayed the car
with
‘The vandals be-sprayed the car with paint.’
(Brinkmann 1997: 69)
Auto.
car
Farbe.
paint
Farbe.
paint
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
400
S. Iwata
Since be attaches to a lexical verb rather than to a VP, we can expect to
find that the addition of be changes the meaning of a lexical verb, and
that since the L-meaning of a resulting verb is compatible with the thematic core associated with the with variant syntax, bespritzen comes to
occur in the with variant frame. This prediction is in fact borne out. Michaelis and Ruppenhofer (2001) observe that the German be-verbs that
can occur in the German with variant frame (‘‘applicative pattern’’ in
their terms) can be characterized in terms of a covering semantics or
some related notions. Therefore, the occurrence of be-verbs in the with
variant frame is attributed to the fact that through the addition of be-,
the lexical verb comes to express a scene construable as covering.
Thus both Japanese and German cases can be uniformly accounted for
by claiming that the morphologically complex verb describes a scene in
which force is exerted to a large portion of a location. Furthermore, this
line of analysis is expected to explain comparable phenomena in other
languages as well (e.g., Hungarian, Russian), although detailed analyses
of individual verbs and prefixes (or su‰xes, as the case may be) are necessary to prove this point.
To recapitulate, the fact that the verb is morphologically complex in
one of the variants apparently challenges my approach, which rejects a
derivation between the variants in English locative alternation. But just
because the verb is morphologically complex does not mean that my account cannot be extended to these cases. On the contrary, once we realize
that the morphological derivation is one at the level of a lexical verb
rather than that of a VP, my theory gives a coherent account of both the
Japanese and German data. Note, incidentally, that Goldberg’s version
of constructional analysis as it stands has di‰culty with locative alternations involving morphologically complex verbs. Goldberg (1995) briefly
states that morphemes are constructions:
On the present account, the closed-class grammatical morpheme is analogous to
the English skeletal construction; the verb stem plays the role of the main verb.
The semantic integration of morpheme and verb stem is analogous to the integration of construction and verb in English. (Goldberg 1995: 22–23)
If one strictly follows this view, one would have to say that tsukusu has its
own syntax and semantics, comparable to those of a with variant, and
that maku is integrated into this ‘‘construction’’. But it is highly implausible to claim that tsukusu possesses a constructional meaning representable
by, say, cause 3agent, patient4, and that these semantic roles are fused
with those of maku, i.e., 3sprinkler, liquid, target4. Such a putative constructional meaning is entirely unrelated to the original meaning of tsukusu ‘to exhaust’.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
401
In contrast, my account does not have to hypothesize a dubious constructional status for tsukusu. And it shows clearly how the meaning ‘to
exhaust’ contributes to the change in meaning, and hence to the shift in
the syntactic frame, from maku to maki-tsukusu. This is another advantage of my analysis over Goldberg’s.31
9. Conclusion
In this paper I have argued that locative alternation can be adequately
handled by a form-meaning correspondence model that crucially draws
on two levels of verb meaning: L-meaning and P-meaning. In the first
part of this paper this model has been shown to overcome problems created by lexical rule approaches of Rappaport and Levin (1988) and
Pinker (1989).32
In the second part of the paper, this model was compared with Goldberg’s (1995) Construction Grammar approach. The two analyses are
fundamentally the same, but Goldberg’s Correspondence Principle-based
account fails to make full use of the potential of Construction Grammar.
Many things can be explained clearly and revealingly by referring to the
particulars of a frame semantic scene, rather than by merely matching
role labels.
Finally, it has been shown that my account can be extended to locative
alternations accompanied by a morphological derivation in other languages: The morphological derivation signals a change in L-meaning,
rather than a derivation of one P-meaning from another.
My account does not su¤er from unnecessary stipulations or ad hoc
machinery. Rather, it is based on a very orthodox assumption which few
will find objectionable, namely, that form and meaning are closely connected. The L-meaning/P-meaning distinction is an automatic consequence of the recognition that a verb is to be distinguished from a syntactic context in which it appears.
Received 15 September 2000
Revision received 16 February 2002
Osaka City University
Notes
*
I’d like to express my gratitude to an anonymous reviewer, whose detailed comments
and suggestions helped me to significantly improve this paper. I’d also like to thank
the following people, who, knowingly or unknowingly, helped me a great deal, either
as linguists or as informants (or as both), at various stages of the preparation of this
article (in chronological order): William Lee, Lynne Roecklein, Minoru Nakau, Yukio
Hirose, Ryuichi Washio, Adele E. Goldberg, Andrew Simpson, Alyssa Wulf, Paula
Rogers, Tony Higgins, Bennett Koehler, Ramon Escamilla, Eileen Kaki Hu, Julie
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
402
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S. Iwata
Newcomb, Hans Christian Boas, Koichi Miyakoshi and Yasuko Kawano. Author’s email address: 3s_iwata@kb4.so-net.ne.jp4.
Still another problem is that the putative paraphrase relations are unconstrained and
quite arbitrary. Marantz (1992: 187), in arguing against the lexical extension approach
in the manner of Levin and Rappaport, points out that the semantic structure proposed
for the ‘extended’ sense can be applied to almost any change-of-state verbs in English:
‘X hits Y’ can be paraphrased as ‘X makes contact with Y by hitting’; ‘X walks’ can be
paraphrased as ‘X goes by walking’; and so on.
In recent years a non-derivational account of locative alternation has been suggested in
a number of studies (Farrell 1994, 1995; Rosen 1996; Croft 1998), but these analyses
are not as detailed as Pinker’s.
Strictly, an agent who does the act of spraying should be included in this figure. But
since to do so would make the figure rather complex and hard to follow, I will leave it
out of the ensuing figures.
At the last minute of revising this paper, I realized that the linking of cover-class verbs
in Figure 7b may be ultimately e¤ected by the interaction of the thematic core ‘X acts
upon Y’ associated with the simple transitive frame [NP V NP] and a locatum with adjunct. But a full demonstration of this point will be detractingly long, so I leave the
linking of cover-class verbs unchanged in this paper.
Some might argue that with some verbs, one of the variants seems more basic than the
other. But this does not mean that the two variants must be derivationally related. It is
conceivable that even when the L-meaning fits more than one thematic core, it fits one
of them more comfortably. The seeming asymmetry is due to the shift from a more
comfortable fit to a less comfortable fit when the L-meaning is assessed, and not to derivational directionality.
In earlier versions of this paper, as well as in my earlier works (Iwata 1998, 2002a, To
appear), I characterized the contrast between locative variant and with variant as that
between a change of location and a change of state, essentially the same as Pinker
(1989). But then I realized that the with variant should be characterized in terms of a
covering semantics (or some related notions) as shown in Section 3, rather than a
change of state. See Iwata (2002b) for discussion on the problems that arise under the
‘‘change-of-state’’ thesis.
But this is not true of all locative alternation verbs. While verbs like load and pack can
be modified by one by one, some other verbs cannot be so modified, because the action
does not proceed incrementally.
(i) a.
b.
(ii) a.
b.
c.
John loaded boxes onto the wagon one by one.
John packed shirts into the suitcase one by one.
?John crammed vegetables into the refrigerator one by one.
?Mary stu¤ed feathers into the pillow one by one.
?He heaped bricks onto the stool one by one.
8. A very similar view of verb meaning as a category of related senses is found in RudzkaOstyn (1989).
9. Actually, this is the first half of the original statement in Lako¤ (1987), which continues as: ‘‘Such properties are necessary and su‰cient to define the category. All categories are of this kind’’ (Lako¤ 1987: 161).
10. As will be shown immediately below, my account is fundamentally the same as Goldberg’s (1995) Construction Grammar approach. Accordingly, both my account and
Goldberg’s approach sharply contrast with lexical rule approaches. Although Rappaport and Levin (1998) argue that the di¤erence between lexical rule and construction
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
403
grammar approaches is not so wide, they overlook the fact that lexical rule approaches
are necessarily committed to deriving one variant from another.
I owe a great deal to an anonymous reviewer as to both the content and organization
of Sections 6 and 7.
Thus for a participant role to be (lexically) profiled and for an argument role to be
(constructionally) profiled mean di¤erent things.
This may be done on-line. See Coulson (2001) for the dynamics of framing. I’d like to
thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out to me the relevance of Coulson’s work.
A word of caution. I’m simply saying that my account is fundamentally the same
as Goldberg’s theory, not that it is compatible with any version of Construction
Grammar.
Adele Goldberg (personal communication) has suggested that the Correspondence
Principle is a default principle that can be overridden by specific constructions.
This basically reiterates Pinker’s list, except that the scatter-class is left out.
I’d like to thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this point to my attention.
Adele Goldberg (p.c.) has suggested that this case can be accounted for by a construction which serves to background a normally prominent (profiled) role under a certain
discourse context (cf. Goldberg 2000, 2001). This could be taken to indicate that a
scene is construed di¤erently, in accord with my analysis. But the fact remains that
the Correspondence Principle brings in a complication that can be dispensed with.
The simple transitive frame [NP V NP] is associated with a number of thematic cores,
including not only ‘‘X acts upon Y’’ but also ‘‘X experiences Y’’ (e.g., see, love, adore).
See Pinker (1989), Goldberg (1995, 1997) and Levin (1999). Whatever construction
sanctions a substance emission event is one of these constructions.
The entry in (74) is not problematic for the Correspondence Principle, for constructions
can impose profiled status on unprofiled participant roles.
Actually, the judgement of the with variant of spread is very subtle. Although many
scholars have cited spread as a locative alternation verb (Pinker 1989; Levin 1993,
among others; Buck 1993 being an exception), most of my informants find (78b) only
marginally acceptable. Apparently, this is because it is rather di‰cult to construe a surface rather than a substance as being acted upon. But the sentence may improve with a
slight modification. According to an anonymous reviewer, She was thinly spreading her
toast with Marmite sounds much better.
This probably has to do with the point touched upon in Note 21.
By understanding the L-meaning of spread to be image-schema-based, we can explain
why spread can so readily describe events that do not involve a semi-liquid (e.g., The
city spreads for miles to the North, He stepped back and spread his hands wide). In contrast, if one represents the verb meaning as a list of participant roles as in (80) (i.e.,
3spreader, semi-liquid, target4), one cannot handle these non-semi-liquid cases without
proliferating lexical entries.
This di¤erence between spray and spread may not be so large as it appears. First, the
spraying scene as discussed in 7.1 is quite schematic, approaching image-schemas. Second, it is possible to suppose that the L-meaning of spray encodes not only a scene but
also something prior to a scene, e.g., schematic images of an action. But I will not go
into these issues here.
I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer, whose insightful comments made me realize
what I had been after, thereby enabling me to state the di¤erence between (78) and (81)
in a clear way.
I do not rule out the possibility that the notion of lexical profiling, implemented di¤erently, may turn out to be useful for capturing certain linguistic phenomena. Still, the
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
404
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
S. Iwata
fact remains that the lexical profiling as practiced by Goldberg (1995) does a poor job
in an account of locative alternation.
Thus my theory may be called lexical constructional approach, to be distinguished
from Goldberg’s version of constructional approach (See Iwata 2002a).
I am indebted to Ryuichi Washio for reminding me of the necessity to tackle locative
alternations involving morphological derivation.
But the actual number of Japanese alternating verbs is much larger than Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny’s (1985) exposition will have us believe. Although I do not have space
here to go into a detailed discussion, at least thirty Japanese verbs enter into the alternation, including nuru (‘to smear’), haru (‘to plaster’) maku (‘to coil’), umeru (‘to bury’),
yamadumi-ni-suru (‘to make a heap’), mitasu (‘to fill’), ippai-ni-suru (‘to make something full’), kazaru (‘to decorate’) etc. (See also Kishimoto 2001). I am grateful to
Yasuko Kawano for discussing these Japanese verbs with me.
Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) gloss maku as ‘to smear,’ but I find ‘to sprinkle’ to
be closer in meaning to maku. Accordingly, even when I cite their examples I will use
‘to sprinkle’ rather than ‘to smear’ as a gloss.
Michaelis and Ruppenhofer’s (2001) constructional analysis of German be-verbs is
more in line with my analysis, but I will not discuss this issue here.
Interestingly enough, a number of generative lexical semantics studies in recent years
(Levin and Rappaport 1995, 1998; Rappaport and Levin 1998; Rapoport 1999, among
others) take a rather di¤erent approach to argument structure alternations from the
lexical rule approach embodied by Rappaport and Levin (1988) and Pinker (1989):
These analyses posit a small number of aspectually-based, lexical semantic templates,
and argue that the alternation arises when a given verb is associated with more than
one lexical semantic template. Since positing lexical semantic templates makes it possible to relate multiple verb senses without resorting to lexical rules, these approaches
could be taken to embody a move toward bridging the gap between generative lexical
semantics studies and constructional approach (cf. Iwata 2002a). But commitment to deriving one sense from another is still visible among these studies, and some of them explicitly characterize the relationship between two senses as one of ‘derivation’, which indicates that they are still under the influence of the basic assumption uncovered in 5.2.
References
Ackerman, Farrell
1992
Complex predicates and morpholexical relatedness: locative alternation in
Hungarian. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolsci (eds.), Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 55–83.
Boas, Hans Christian
2000
Resultative Constructions in English and German. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Brinkmann, Ursula
1997
The Locative Alternation in German: Its Structure and Acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Buck, R. A.
1993
A¤ectedness and other semantic properties of English denominal locative
verbs. American Speech 68, 139–160.
Carrier, Jill and Janet Randall
1992
The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 173–234.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
405
Coulson, Seana
2001
Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William
1991
Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
1998
Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, Miriam and Wilhelm Geuder
(eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 21–63.
2001
Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Groot, Casper
1984
Totally a¤ected. Aspect and three-place predicates. In de Groot, Casper and
H. Tommola (eds.), Aspect Bound. Dordrecht: Foris, 133–151.
Dowty, David
1991
Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.
Endo, Yoshio
1986
A constraint on English activo-passives. Tsukuba English Studies 5, 107–
122.
Farrell, Patrick
1994
The locative alternation and multistratalism. Linguistics 32, 5–45.
1995
Lexical binding. Linguistics 33, 939–980.
Fillmore, Charles J.
1975
An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley Linguistic Society
1, 123–131.
1977
Topics in lexical semantics. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 76–138.
1982
Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the
Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111–138.
Fraser, Bruce
1971
A note on the spray paint cases. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 604–607.
Fukui, Naoki, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Carol Tenny
1985
Verb classes in English and Japanese: A case study in the interaction of syntax, morphology and semantics. (Lexicon Project Working Papers 3.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Linguistics department.
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995
Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
1997
The relationships between verbs and constructions. In Verspoor, Marjolijn,
Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 383–398.
2000
Argument realization: the role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. Unpublished manuscript. University of Illinois.
2001
Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: the role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 23, 503–
24.
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, and Richard Goldberg
1991
A¤ectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 41, 153–195.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
406
S. Iwata
Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser
1997
On the complex nature of simple predicators. In Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan,
and Peter Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 29–65.
1999
Bound features, merge and transitivity alternation. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 35, 49–72.
Inagaki, Daisuke
1989
On the locative alternation. Tsukuba English Studies 8, 205–236.
Ito, Takane
1981
The lexicalist hypothesis revisited. Linguistic Research 1, 33–63.
Iwata, Seizi
1998
A Lexical Network Approach to Verbal Semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
2002a
Does manner count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics
40, 61–110.
2002b
Does the wall really change its state? The constructional meaning of the with
variant in the locative alternation. Unpublished manuscript. Osaka City
University.
To appear The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. In Boas, Hans C.
and Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammar: Back to the Roots.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jackendo¤, Ray
1990
Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Je¤ries, Lesley and Penny Willis
1984
A return to the spray paint issues. Journal of Pragmatics 8, 715–729.
Kiparsky, Paul
1997
Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells
(eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 473–499.
Kishimoto, Hideki
2001
Kabenuri-koubun [‘Smear-the-wall’ construction]. In Kageyama, Taro (ed.),
Doshi-no-imi-to koubun [Verb Meaning and Construction]. Tokyo: Taishukan, 100–126.
Lako¤, George
1987
Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the
Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
1991
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2: Descriptive Applications.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Levin, Beth
1999
Objecthood: An event structure perspective. CLS 35, 223–247.
1993
English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav
1986
The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 623–61.
1991
Wiping the slate clean: a lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41, 123–151.
1995
Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
1998
Morphology and lexical semantics. In Spencer, Andrew and Arnold Zwicky
(eds.), Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 248–271.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning
407
Lindner, Susan
1982
What goes up doesn’t necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites.
Papers from the 18th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 305–323.
Marantz, Alec
1992
The way-construction and the semantics of direct arguments in English: A
reply to Jackendo¤. In Stowell, Tim and Eric Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon. New York, NY: Academic Press. 179–
188.
Maruta, Tadao
1998
Shieki-Dooshi no Anatomii [Anatomy of Causative Verbs]. Shohakusha:
Tokyo.
Matsumoto, Yo
2000
Causative alternation in English and Japanese: A closer look. English Linguistics 17, 160–192.
McKoon, Gail and Macfarland Talke
2000
Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language 76, 833–
858.
Michaelis, Laura and Josef Ruppenhofer
2001
Beyond Alternations: A Constructional Model of the German Applicative Pattern. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Moravcsik, Edith A.
1978
On the case marking of objects. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of
Human Language Volume 4: Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 249–289.
Nakau, Minoru
1994
Ninchi-imiron-no genri [Principles of cognitive semantics]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Pinker, Steven
1989
Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rapoport, Tovav
1999
Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language 75, 653–677.
Rappaport, Malka and Beth Levin
1988
What to do with theta-roles. In Wilkins, Wendy (ed.), Syntax and Semantics
21: Thematic Relations. New York, NY: Academic Press, 7–36.
1998
Building verb meanings. In Butt, Miriam and Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The
projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications, 97–134.
2001
An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77, 766–797.
Rice, Sally
1987
Towards a Cognitive Model of Transitivity. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Diego, CA.
Rosen, Sara
1996
Events and verb classification. Linguistics 34, 191–223.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida
1989
Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask.
Linguistics 27, 613–661.
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM
Brought to you by | University Library at Iupui
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 8/2/12 9:43 PM