An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives

Abstract

Current syntactic accounts of English resultatives are based on the assumption that result XPs are predicated of underlying direct objects. This assumption has helped to explain the presence of reflexive pronouns with some intransitive verbs but not others and the apparent lack of result XPs predicated of subjects of transitive verbs. We present problems for and counterexamples to some of the basic assumptions of the syntactic approach, which undermine its explanatory power. We develop an alternative account that appeals to principles governing the well-formedness of event structure and the event structure-to-syntax mapping. This account covers the data on intransitive verbs and predicts the distribution of subject-predicated result XPs with transitive verbs.* A hallmark of the English resultative construction is the presence of a result XP-an XP denoting a state or location that holds of the referent of an NP in the construction as a result of the action denoted by its verb. Studies of resultatives have often focused on the constraints on the distribution and interpretation of these XPs. These constraints seem to lend themselves to a syntactic explanation, and a number of syntactic accounts have been developed (Bresnan & Zaenen 1990, Hoekstra 1984, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995:33-78, Simpson 1983, with an impressive coverage of the data. Recently, however, Verspoor (1997) and Wechsler (1997) have raised empirical problems for such accounts, and our own investigations have uncovered additional problematic data. These findings call into question the foundation of the syntactic approach to English resultatives. In fact, a number of authors have proposed that the properties of the construction are explained by appeal to semantic notions (e.g. Goldberg 1995: 180-98, Jackendoff 1997, Van Valin 1990:254-55, Wechsler 1997, and in this article we also propose a semantic account. In our semantic account the explanatory burden is borne by event structure representations, well-formedness conditions on these representations, and principles of mapping from event structure to syntactic structure. We show that our event structure account maintains the wide empirical coverage of syntactic accounts, without suffering from their shortcomings. In addition, it illuminates the nature of event structure, as well as its lexical semantic underpinnings.The success of syntactic accounts rests to a large extent on the adoption of the UNACCUSATIVE HYPOTHESIS (Burzio 1986, Rosen 1981, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995, Perlmutter 1978. It has been argued that the distinction between unaccusative and unergative intransitive verbs must be syntactically encoded in order for a uniform generalization to be stated governing the different English resultative patterns, and this observation is considered to provide some of the strongest support for the syntactic encoding of unaccusativity in English (Hoekstra 1984, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 33-78, Simpson 1983. Much of the data we consider here involves intransitive verbs in the resultative constru...

Directions from the GET-GO. On the syntax of manner-of-motion verbs in directional constructions

“…My proposal sides partially with approaches to directional resultatives that treat them as 'causal' (e.g., Levin & Rapoport 1988, Van Valin 1990:224) and partially with those (e.g., Rappaport Hovav & Levin 2001, Kaufmann & Wunderlich 1998) that do not: though a 'causal' analysis for e.g. John danced into the room or the bee buzzed into the room (representing them as 'John got into the room by dancing' and 'the bee got into the room by buzzing') is certainly inade quate, a 'causal' analysis of directional resul ta tives should not be dispensed with categorically: in section 4, I argue that it is correct for verbs like fall, and that a very similar analysis should also be adopted for directional resultatives featuring verbs such as crawl or climb; the set of 'manner-of-motion verbs' is not fully homogeneous in its behaviour in direc tional resultatives, and this paper argues that this is a reflex of the different ways in which the lexically idiosyncratic meaning component contributed by the verb is syntactically represented.…”

Interpreting resultative sentences in German: Stages in L1 acquisition

“…Dowty 1979;Hoekstra 1988;Pustejovsky 1991;Neeleman 1995;Wunderlich 1997;Beck and Snyder 2001;Kratzer 2005;Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2001). We argued that the ability of a verb to form adjectival resultatives is determined by its semantics (Richter and van Hout 2010).…”

Emotion in lexicon and grammar: lexical-constructional interface of Mandarin emotional predicates

“…By aligning the same semantic role (Experiencer) with two grammatical positions (S and A), these verbs represent another unique case of form-meaning mapping relation: The intransitive-transitive alternation exemplified above may be viewed as a stative version of unergativity, as intransitive S is aligned with transitive A for the same semantic role. The unergative pattern with 滿意 manyi "be content/content with" can be further contrasted with the counter-pattern of a near-synonymous verb 滿足 manzu "be satisfied/satisfy," which displays an unaccusative alignment of S and O for expressing Experiencer, as shown below: The contrast between the two verbs 滿意 manyi "be content/contend with" and 滿 足 manzu "be satisfied/satisfy" represents a phenomenon of split intransitivity (Van Valin 1990;Levin and Hovav 1995;2001), defined as the form-meaning mismatch that subdivides intransitive predicates into two types. Verbs with an intransitive S may be semantically and syntactically aligned with a transitive subject A (unergative verbs) or a transitive object O (unaccusative verbs).…”