&
*.
,|:
96
Roronoucos
Ntlassam,
University Press.
syntax-lexical semantics interface in the eightpoint the hypothesis that many aspects of the
tsyntactic structure of a sentence-in particular, the syntactic realizetion of arguments-are projected from the lexical properties cf the
verbs and ot hcr predicators in it (see Wasow 1985). This hy1;oihcsis is
made explicit, for example, in the GB framework's Projection Princi(Chomsky 1981, 1986). On this approach, the Iexical property of
a verb that is taken to determine its syntactic behavior is its rieaniog (..g., Levin 1993; Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995; Pinker 1989).
Much effort was therefore devoted to developing lexical semantic repre,.Much research on the
ies took as its starting
ill
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Terry
Terry
Terry
Terry
swept.
su.cpt thc floor.
i;.We have presented this research in a rrumber of different forurns and would like to
:. thank the audiences for thcir questions and contrilrutions. We aro also grateful to
I{ari Olsen, Grace Song, ancl two reviewers lbr their cornments on arr carlier versicn
+,_ii:,lof
j.l}l:l
..
The Projection oJ
l
l
s8/
f.
(2)
i
;l!
I
i
t
f,
(3)
Kim whistled.
Kim whistled at the dog.
Kim whistled a tune.
Kim whistled a warning.
Kim whistled me a warning.
Kim whistled her appreciation.
Kim whistled to the dog to come.
The bullet whistled through the air.
The air whistled with bullets.
Pat ran.
Pat ran to the beach.
Pat ran herself ragged.
Pat ran her shoes to shreds.
Pat ran clear of the falling rocks.
The coach ran the athletes around the track.
This variation involves not only the number and syntactic type of
plements that a verb can take, but also the allowable combinati
these complements. For instance, although sweep may simply
direct object as in (1b), the NP the crumbs is possible as a direct obj
of sweep only if followed by a PP complement; thus, the acceptable,
contrasts with the unacceptable *Terry swept the crumbs.
the variation in syntactic context correlates with variation in
Consider the verb sweep agait. Sentence (La) shows the propert
an activity, while (1c)-(1f) show propeities of accomplishments.
specifically, (1c) and (1d) describe the bringing about of a c
location, (1e) describes the bringing about of a change of state,r
(1f) describes the creation of an artifact. A second example rei
this point: the verb run cafi be found in contexts describing an
motion to a goAl aq ijl;b)
as in (3a), dlrected
lirected mo_UgL.!e*A
iu$!), a caused change of
------i#
as in (3c) or (3d), or a caused change oflocation as in (3f).
Such variation poses a serious problem for theories of
expression. On an approach which takes argument expression
determined from a lexical semantic representation via linking
verbs with multiple options for the expression of arguments
have multiple lexical semantic representations. If such variatioil
is
rule rather than the exception-and recent studies show that t\e,
nomenon is indeed widespread-then the lexicon must contain a
number of verbs with multiple lexical entries. This result is
able, however, if only that it seems counterintuitive to have to
that, for example, in sentences (1)-(3), we are dealing with six d
99
sueep, nine different verbs whistle, and six different verbs rzn.
,l
Then
ver
bel
determine the range of meana verb can have, and the existence of these multiple lexicr,l entries
uld be accounted for in a principled way.
Although a first glance at examples such as (1)-(3) might give the
ion that a verb's meaningl can vary in almost unlimited ways, a
look at the attested variations in meaning reveals that this is not
There are several striking properties of such variation which suggest
t--rd-,thuunay-Ue."-..qpsfi.i;i-qd--ag j_B!-Eli.g-'o.,flhti]til-GT
c-aUq. :t-e_S-r+"lgl.R9.lys=egty"," For example, the Beliavior oil sweep
cal of verbs of surface contact through motion; thus, the verb of
contact w'ipe is found in the same range of contexts as sweep,
,..
- ,.,r
.i-.+,i,Y'4.!Gf:
illustrated below.
a.
L
U.
j
C.
''
d.
e,
f.
Terry
Terry
Terry
Terry
Terry
Terry
wiped.
wiped the table.
wiped the crumbs into the sink.
wiped the crumbs off the table.
wiped the slate clean.
wiped the crumbs into a pile.
i :i ,",t
100
.q,No
Bo'ru Lovrw
BurlrrNc VpRs
in& Furthermore,
1- Manner
i
versus Result Verbs
It is striking that the verbs whose impressive elasticity in
illustrated in (t)-(3) all lexically specify or "lexicalize" the m
in which the action denoted by the verb is carried out. These
contrast with verbs such as break and open which lexicalize the
jf ,!]ffi
e.1,."a-".ff
ff[i_[-iJs_i1,..p".*1_";ettrre_qlade..Wetfr
2We a.e not concerning ourselves with variations in meaning that involve
or metaphorical uses of a verb (e.g., eat as in The acid ate the metal).
MnA.NTNGS
101
to verbs like sweep ar'd run as "manner verbs,, and to verbs such
After clarifying the nature of the
nded semantic distinction, we demonstrate a correlation between it
the range of syntactic and semantic variation available to a verb:
ilt verbs show a much narrower range of variation in meaning and
tactic context than manner verbs.
As noted above, the verb,jpeep_gxhibits behavior tha" is represenive of that of other verbs of6urface contact, including
ry.tb g-1d wdpe.
three verbs are distinguished from each other in tfie maniilT?
contact they specify but none of these verbs, in its most basic
entails
a resulting change in the contacted surface. Thus, although
,
ror is typically swept in order to remove dirt and debris, a floor thai
t need not end up being clean. Although a hearer will infer that
floor is a clean floor because the conventional goal of sweepis to clean a floor, there is nothing contradictory in saying Zl.acg
break, and open as "result verbs.,,3
ISn Ver
, and perhaps most importantlv, no
the same range of flexibility in meaning and argument expression,
again this property is correlated with a verb's semantic class. For
ample, as we illustrate extensively in section 1 of this paper,
change of state such as break do not permit anything like the r
argument expressions that verbs ofsurface contact such as streep
A prerequisite to the development of an explanatory theory of
sible variation in verb meaning is the documentation of allowable
tions and, more important, the constraints on such variation.2 To t
end, we present a case study of the two verbs break and sweep,
representative of a well-established semantic class: verbs of ex
'caused change of state and verbs of surface contacTTIiiiffi i
rr rgsprecti-vely. We choose these verbs because they serve to illustr
dichotomy in the English verb lexicon that turns out to be ce
understanding the nature of the elasticity of verb meaning. As we
verbs show a striking contrast in the rar
, I i, section 1, these two
'i-, ij --.-. -^-- :-- . - , ,-:r^l-la, rr--,,
nr -r
rr---- -:-- ,-r-,rr
meanings
available
to
them.
First, we- carefully
review
the ar
f''
u-expression options available to each; then, we identify a fu
difference in their meaning. In section 2 we use this difference d
clue to the nature of the process which gives rise to variation in v
meaning. In section 3 we sketch the rudiments of a theorv whichl
predict the exact range of meanings and syntactic contexts which
dividuai verbs may be associated with. In section 4 we show how
theory accounts for the difference between the two verbs under sr
"_i
!.r'E
r.pru,
95121ip1!-.
that Pat is also undergoing some displacement, but in the abof a goal phrase this displacement need not be oriented towards
particulg,L_ggal, apd in fact there need not be any displacement at
WS!*fq!".y^_p!gc-e\ The verb whistle shows the behavior typical of
rbs of sound emission; such verbs lexicalize the manner in which a
is emitted (and perhaps properties of the sound emitted) and
from each other with respect to manner of sound emission. Thus,
Ie is emitted by forcing air through pursed lips, while a grunt
ves the vocal tract.
[4anner verbs like sweep, run, and. whi,stle can be contrasted with
verbs,4 which lexicalize a particular result, but more often than
are vague as to how the result is achieved. There are tye-lyp-gl
type lexic4lizes a qqsu-lti.ng stare and tne-oih*er a
i*Ly"fpUgle.
-a,,
i"At i;;:- T-;;,;
."Cf,' *
ii*lai o,'
s; ;i
"h
""
"i
TIG*ifrme implies, lexicalizes a particular achieved
;i
;;;;:
state, and
,v.erb denotes
102
BBru
Luvrr.r
BUTLDTNG
verb itself denotes the bringing about of this state, it leaves the nat
of the causing activity involved unspecified; that is, such verbs do n(
Iexicalize a manner. For example, clothes may be dried by putting t
into a dryer or by putting them out in the sun; the verb d.ry may be
no matter how the dry state is brought about. Likewise, a vase may be
broken in many ways; again the verb break,s own meaning contributes
nothing to the specification of how the vase came to be broken. Thg
verb clean also specifies a resulting state, while leaving open how it ls.
achieved. In fact, how a clean state is obtained depend.s on the surfi
involved: floors are cleaned by sweeping or washing, while counters
tables are wiped. VS:bp__y.hiSh lexis_A]ize..ap.aqhtgygd tocation are t
t"qglg.Up_Lgf lesuit verbs. These are verbs of directed"motion su
SJ9ru,'-sr,;;Ailr.dft ,*,w,[l,sJ.,-.te"l;iilr-;q"+e'U*is-Ci-tpdig;""f
Ug**9ly*qhp.__a-dueciio.s)-,..b* *_+g!_-q-gn-?-ngel of.,rpo*,trs.r1", r,oi eiim
(5)
Leslie swept.
a.
xKelly broke.
b.
6)
a.
b.
a.
7)
b.
Vpna MpeNrNcs
108
I,. Although sweep and. other verbs of surface contact can be used
as
19191
^t
-r i
Second,
a wid.e range
of
,;4
given in
(7).
104
BUTLDTNG
i,
Valin
1993.)
(12)
'i
L'i'
(13) [x ACr
(14) [ eocor,to lx
105
meanings which thg verb is associated with involve the adof a resulting state: a change of location, a change of state, or
Vpns Mp,qNtucs
<STATE> ])
The possible variations in verb meaning illustrated in (t)-(3)
involve the "expansion" of an activity to yield various kinds of
plishments. For example , if sweep is basically an activity verb, all
Ilr r-
,k ,,
li
iears
bleaching are the use of the verb break it Th,e news broke or the use of the
JaIl in The baby tell asleep. lt is significant that semantic bleaching always
ves the loss or weakening of the idiosyncratic aspect of verb meaning (what we
the "constant" in section 3.1), and to our knowledge, never involves removal
.grammatically-relevant aspects of verb meaning (what we call the "template"
i:rsection 3.1). F\rrthermore, "semantic bleaching" is quite idiosyncratic, being
iated with individual verbs rather than with grammatically-relevant semantic
of verbs in the sense of Levin 1993. Both these properties set it apart from
type of variation in meaning represented bv examples such as (1)-(3).
ii
:11
il
\r
refr6sentation.
102
) a
[[xACr
b.
6)
a.
b.
c.
xACTI
I x ACr I CAUSE I BECOME ly <SrArE> )l)
Ix ACr ] causn Inocoun ly <pLACE>']'l'l
^"i.""p;
108
i
i
x ACTar1aa17rrr,,
x <STATE>
BECOME lx <STATE>))
I x ACTaIaaNNEB> ] C,tUSO
Iencor'tn Iy <57,,{78> ] I l
x CAUSE I encotvto Iy <S7:l7E> ] I l
'
(activity)
(state)
lrr
7)
(achievement)
(accomplishment)
(accomplishment)
109
18)
),
:.
assume
1)
...)
lx <STATE>
ll)
structure template is indicated in capital italics and placed between angle brackets. Argument constants appear in tiie appropriate
L position in the templates. Modifler constants appear as subts to the appropriate predicate in the event structure templates
We call the pairing of a constant and an event structure template
]irn lqyqnt structure." We consider the pairings cf constants and event
lghstead of the event structure template in (19), the canonical realization rule
ior placeable objects might give rise to the ternplate: I x CAUSE I BECOME
<THING> AT V ] ] ]. There is some debate as to which template is the more
appropriate one; see Hale and Keyser 1993 for discussion. We also leave it to further
to determine whether the templates in (19) and (20) should be of the form
activity template.
TIie basic idea behind the canonical realization rules is that
the treatment of the nonactor argulrlent of tlvo-argtrrnent activity verbs in sectiong
fcvent cause event" rather than the proposed "individual cause event."
Our representations for activities use the primitive predicate ACT modified by
rnanner constant; other representations for activities use a predicate DO taking
coustant as an argument or, if not, take a form that is suggestive of this analF.r{, as in Hale and Keyser 1993. For example, our proposed analysis of laugh
xACIalaLtcs;, ] could be contrasted with the following alternative analysis,
xDO <l,q,UGI1> l. The representation in terms of DO appears to receive support from languages like Basque where the counterparts of English one-argument
rctivity verbs are expressed by ttre verb do plus a noun (Levin 1989); however, this
rcpresentation does not seem appropriate for two-argument activity verbs. Clearly,
110
Bllrtt LDvIN
lr
cou1 l.
10ure d.o not spell out the details of the process that intr:grates the participarits'
associatecl rvith the constant rvit,h the variables of tlte event structure
here, but see Goldberg 1995, particularly chapter 2, for some relevant discuss
which though coucherl in terms of the constructional approach discussed in
appendix. can be translated into the perspectivc that rve are taking here
111
ity verbs, such as the vcrb sueep. we have suggested that the verb
sweep is derived from a constant associated with two participants, although the activity event structure template this constant is associated
with has only one variable. The actor participant is matched up with
the variable of the a,ctivity template, but the nonactor argument is
not matchcd up with a variable in the activity template and must be
integrated into the resulting event structure in some other way. Its
'
st-rqcture ternplate and the constant and those that are licensed by
virtue of the constant alone. In fact, Grimshaw (1gg3) argues convincingly for making a dichotomy among arguments along roughly
these lines based on differences in the behavior of the two types of
argumentsl she refers to them as ,,structure,, and ,,content,, argu_
mel!s-, respectively; we will refCr to them as ,,structure,, and .,coosturrt,,
iparticipa,ts:'t yn relurn to the differe,.ces in behavior in section 4.1,
atter proposing in scction 3.2 that there are distinct conclitions govern_
ling the syntactic realization of the two types of participants. In the
.eve[t structures in the remainder of the paper, constant participants
be undcrlined to distinguish them from srructure participanis.
"wjll
we
have just desciibed the construction of a basic verb meani,g.
":i
The widespread variation in verb meaning indicates that rnany,
__*_-J','^ if not
most, verbs are also associated with derived verb meanings. we attribute much of the variation in verb meaning, specifically that variation which is monotonic in nature, to Temprate Augmentation, which
allows more complex event structure templates to be built on simpler
bnesl however, Template Augmentation can only create meanings that
are consistent with the basic inventory of lexical event structure templates.
[?,)
,r
,fl
Iir
,I
ii
l:
112
/ Malxe R,qppaponr
113
(25) ArgumentRealizationCondition:
a.
There must be an argument XP in the syntax
b.
I
tacticallycncodedandtliatthesyntacticlcpresentationmustbefully
interpreied semantically. This idea has generally been lnstantiated
with respcct to the arguments of predicatcs, as in the Theta-criterion
of chomsky 1981, but in the subevent Iclentificzrtion condition in (2a)
we extencl this iclea to the major components of the event structure,
the subevents that constitute it.
,ll
(24)
$urlevent Identification Condition:, Each subevent in the
*"rrt .t.,r.iure must be identificd, by a lexical head (e'g', . v.l
an A, or a P) in the syntax.
In most instances this iclentification comes about as a side cffect of
association of the constant with an event structure template via o
of the canonical realization rulcs: the verb takes its name from t
Constant, and we assume the verb also idcntifies any subevents in the
event structure that results from tlie association of the constant wit\
an event structure template by the relcvant canonical realization ru
If Ternplate Augmentation contributes anotl'rer subevent to an even
structure previously created via a canonical realization rule, then thi
additional subevent must be identifred by another Iexical head in
syntax for the subevent Identification condition to be mct. As state
the Subevcnt Identification Conclition allorvs for a single verb in t
syntax to identify rnore than one subevent when a canorrical realizatioqi
rule associates tlte constarrt with a complex event structure template;
as we discuss in cletail in scction 4.1, cxternally caused change of statq
verbs, rvhich are built using canonical reallzation rule (22) are a casq
,trii
in point,.
Argument
two-part
the
Tlie second u''ell-formedcss condition,
alization Condition, involves tlle syntactic rcalization of tlie
participants in the event structure.
for each
structure participant in the event structure.
Each argument XP in the syntax must be associated
with an identified subevent in the event structure.
constant participant be recoverable. Their content is trivially recoverable when they are syntactically expressed, but such participants may
sometimes also be rccoverable when unexpressed from the context via
pragmatic inferences; see section 4.1 for further discussion. Thus, the
.conditions on the syntactic realization of constant and structure par-
,ticipants differ.
i'
tL4
Betn Levru
Bierwisch).
fl
(26) [xACTasyypnp>y)
It
E]
in (27).
within Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin 1990, 1993). In the activityt
of these verbs, only the actor argument is assigned a macrorole, while the ot
nonactor argument is not; this assignment contrasts with two-argument
ment verbs, each of whose arguments is assigned a macrorole. Although the
of macrorole is very different from the notion of structure argument, like the
ofstructure argument, this notion has repercussions for syntactic realization.
12The two arguments of two-arfument activity verbs also receive distinct treat
f.
.r
with
participants: a sweeper and a surface. (We assume that the stuff t
might be on the surface is not among the minimum set of particip
since it is possible to sweep a surface without anything being on
This constant, which we represent as <SWEEP>, is associated w
an activity event structure template by canonical realization rule (1
The single variable of the activity template will be matched up w
the sweeper participant associated with the constant since they
semantically compatible. However, the constant is also associated u
a second participant, the surface, and so this participant is I
only by the constant, making it a constant participant, not a
participant.l2 Thus, sweephas the basic event structure in (26).
a.
b.
115
Verbs
Multiple Meanings
$
t)
116
(za) [ [x.ACT.y;Nff;,
and the number of variables associated with the event structemplate; however, a comparable discrepancy does not arise for
ally caused verbs of change of state. TbS"Iglg_ylq!"-9o-Sp-!-a"gjs
asqo_cg1!-ellyith tw.o.par.:-reip^s_qtF"i-,tlr"q. _q-aus,.er aud the ,9p!tly--.tbat
state-what is typically refe11-qd !-o- 3s the patienl. These conare piired with an event structure template with two variables'
in each subevent, and each of these two variables is semantically
ble with, and thus matched up with, one of the two constantiated participants. Thus, there are no participants in the event
bure whose presence is purely sanctioued by the constant; that is,
participan[s are stryct_urp -par!i-crp3nt1.
'Ith-lals-baCkfir?r"rind, we now look at the application of the Ar-
ll
ii
I
I
I
,*
rt
change of state verb. This con-.i--n requires the obligatory exof both the subject and the direct object of such verbs, a prop
of these verbs noted in section 1, since each realizes a structure
ipant, one associated with each subevent of the complex event
of these verbs. Our analysis of this property adopts the ceninsight of the analyses proposed by Brissou (1994) and Grimshaw
'L*-*-*'
)i
,l
\t
"l
tl
ii
it,
)a.
'b,
ti
i!
$
!
ri
I
ril
, as shown in (29).
Tlacy broke the dishes.
*tacy
broke.
to the
in
their
difference
riuess of the direct object arises from the
t structures.
-The
bdii-ffiown property of externally caused verbs of change of
d a property that sets them apart from internally caused
of change of st ate-is th9i1. nqrficip+tias. ill ..!!.e_."9qu-.s-g, iyq-.pl_
ion, illustrated in (30); that is, they allorv transiiive causative
intransitive noncausative uses.
, the sharp contrast between break and sweepwith respect
30)
a.
b.
Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995 we argue that even in the nonwith the same complex event
ii
ii
118
/ Me.lxe
tive use, since the constant is still the same, and the same
realization rule associates this constant with an event structure
plate. But the intransitive use of brealc appears to be problematic
the perspective of the Argument Realization Condition. Only a sin
argument is expressed, and yet the verb is associated with an
structure with two subevents, so that Argument Realization Condi
(25a) appears not to be met.
In ggst l_q.ngg,_1g:*h:.g-l*:."ji"_ge-l&r+
t5rg .Ls-.ild iraled _by, :g1nq,typ eTfHorpirbto gicat markin g, and in ma:
'5I1,hese
languages, the lniransiii.,e usg is moiph-oiogicaffy qrore.-cgj
pt.q" ghu{,
ift. qia;sde
_ule (see
uaspLrmitii'hOE,"UaJ;u;-i
jfi :
yhichse1,vres.Iq.S9.[:$^-l_4!.A_!g!i;nentReatizatioii"'bonditic
on t his account, ii ;#;i al i; ridT iifiinffi riAliE'ffiffiteme.,e u
;;
119
srArg> )l)
)
)
)a.
"tr;;;;;ffi
l
I
tl
i!
,i
ii
t!
:i
L:
The multiple meanings of a verb like sweep can be derived via Temp
Augmentation on the basic event structure template associateid
this verb, given in (26) and repeated in (31). As an activity tem
this basic template is a subpart of several of the other possible
structure templates listed in section 3.1; thus, this template can bd
augmented to give these other templates as long as the resulting coml
plex event structure meets the well-formedness conditions on syntactil
l-i:lll
o-^^:c--rr
-^^l:-^r:^realization.
Specifically, their satisfaction will require a predicate in
syntax that can identify the second subevent introduced via
Augmentation, as well as an argument in the syntax that is
with this subevent. For example, one potential event structure t
could be derived by applying Template Augmentation to (31) is (32)p
This event structure is associated with the resultative construction as
in (33), where the head of the resultative phrase identifies the second
subevent, ensuring the satisfaction of the subevent Identification Coni
36)
As Brisson (1994) points out, the simple transitive use of verbs like sueep can
ippear with telic time adverbials as in Phil swept the fi,oor in ten minuteg However,
we agree with her in assuming that this, compatibility does not necessarily imply
ffi
120
.the-
ar.
+S FS-1Ye
ond ar gu
.
be expressed since it
n!.: T he
sec
\\tf,ut
| !ecoverable.
r.ii
121
it
there is
is a participant in the second su
Alternatively,
second
tifv this
simply with an activity event structure,
we associaLe the verb in
as the stuff removed, would not be
if
it
is
interpreted
the crumbs,
in this event structure, Ieading to
single
subevent
ated with the
Condition (25b). In fact, the
Realization
Argument
violation of the
to associate with (40) is the
able
are
that
speakers
interpretation
jnsensical one where the crumbs are the surface that is being swept. lt
reading is precisely the expected one if the sentence is associated
the activity event structure.lo
\Me see, then, that activity verbs, typified by the verb stlreep, have
-stants which are modifiers in an activity event structure, which can
il
il
-H:*":".t1,!:
:lg:gptabte """:-"S.:rgp, Bigrc:lq@*Y9l!,Jsrg-19!a state conbtant ln rts oasiE evenT-dtruEtflfr-so that crannbs h?s no subevent
ugmentat
ing Phil swept the fl'oor clean of crumbs, where the adjective cleon. identifies
added change of state subevent'
dilected motion use of verbs of manner o,[.n-nSl|Sn'39i\t Pat ran to fu-hsa.ch'
an-Ecfinfffo-aAfiripiGEffi"t-"t-irt;
acllvrty-f,o-accorrrPrrslllrlellu Dllll!i
v6lies
ves an
as clear or clean. Clear and clean enter into the construction illustrated in I
*Ph!*sw.e2\
ed ths.tshlp-gfulisbS,s. but verbs like sweep do not:
1trg.flooL ,
. The reason for the contrast is that in the acceptable sentence dishes is I
ant associated with the state constant <CLEAR>, which appears in the I
cfrrre of
nf .a
a. verb
verh like clear-.slnce
cl.eo,r since it-_E:e!.-g2siernallyJAugegghglg="-9f-s!e!S
it is an externallv caused change of state I
strueture
h!y9!1,,1ftr SEtgiJ*,
qh thev also consist
arla;Esulf-f-so, ihe
ffi uses of verbs of surface
122
123
rh-e-res-ultaliveph1q,,s9-${hgrspeci-$gs- j}9-g[a1ee*at"lre'3d'y
t x o ud'aitio"uf t"."tt i"g st ge- n*:.uS:-" 39i.*
'iln"
examples in section 1.
We now show how the rigidity of externally caused change of
verbs with respect to argument expression arises from the'inte
ofTemp}ateAugmentationandthecomplexeventstructuretempla
a1
associated with externally caused state constants' The natient
particip
sole
is
the
break
as
such
verb
ment of a change of state
the second subevent in its event structure, and, as such, it is a str
participant and must be realized by an XP in syntaxl the linking
d.etermine that the patient is expressed as a direct object' fhiff-rcI
(41)
";;b.i
Kelly broke the dishes to Pieces'
caused
nother possible way to vary the meaning of an externally
causing
the
vary
le of siate verb such as break would be to
,t, 5rrst as the meaning of a verb of surface contact can be
of
by varying the nature of tn" resulting state in the change
lr,rU"rr"i. in ord", to obtain such meanings there would have
;a1e*icul way of adding information about the causing subevent'
ao.t oot ,""* to be one. In fact, we know of no verb that
tn"."
tf"ftrpr" meanings that are differentiated
I
lilh':a sharp
11Y"::.?::]:
,break yith
instrument'
ffi-o.o;",6-irrui "u" mean both
'.exicalized in the verb, the
i1;; with the hand,. untess it is
lit*r, ,f tr""ifying this information in English is periphrastically'
-instance,
through the use of. a by clause'
lil;;, th" p.opJrti". that distinguish the verb break from the verb
of their event struceD canbe accounted for through the interaction
and the
Augmentation'
!'i.p*r".rtutions, the operation of Template
a,
-i::L:
:,;==::
lrOther Consequences
yements show the same rigidity in behavior as accomplishments'
with a
iccomplishments, achievements are lexically associated
I resulting state. The state associated with the achievement
iw is a particulil (deictically detarnirued) location, whtle t'be
)iffi.e.-w ry
tr-fidwtr Ey6
riq@ffi
6 g.
could be appli
variants:
ii (46)
ti
a.
[ BECoME Ix ACTayarrra, ] l
Finally, we illustrate how the theory presented here accounts in a
al way for an interesting difference between verbs which denote
d-slas"c9s"p.l. gfiple and
9l$glS-Ar mentioned in section 4.1, verbs hke breff,
gh they lexicalize only a resulting state, involve states that are
ualized as being externally caused; thus, they are basically as_
. with a complex event structure template which
involves both a
subevent and a change of state subevent. "ihese verbs contrast
7)
"gJ.@
i*sl""q"llv-g*sssd*
}jS"t"?llts.*sssd*bapse*sls-t..atp*.yer!:Ly-.ichn_qiies{ffi ilJE;
about naturally in an entitv. The*. *i,il,J;;;;;*
_9"h"-g*!..1e!,*lplly_",+."g+*e+tj!X.Thesesiites*a*c""ffiffi
a"
ving their source internal to the entity that changes siate, and
tly the constants naming them cannot be associated with
plex event structure template that involves a causing subevent.
, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (lggb) note that these verbs
,be_in_state,
a systematic ambiguity:
reading and
{loyl"S both a
l"rsad:qs. rhififfireffie Eet"rieen t[;-tn;o
the fw6*i6Effiffiilis
r
in (48).
a.
b.
Itehc nature of (aSa) is highlighted by the durative time adveriAu interpretation involving iteration of telic events is excluded
since an amaryllis has only one flower. In contrast, (4gb) has a
interpretation, as indicated by its compatibility with it ,r, ti*"
bial [lrF
;;;i6;-il-'t#a"re'ea:
lx
<IN-BLOSSOM> l
we assume the basic analysis of such .rerbs is as internally
state verbs: they take their name from an internallv caused
r.,constant, which is associated with a state template by canonical
ion rule, (21). The internally caused change of state interpre_
then, is the result of Template Augmentation, which derives an
rent template from the state template through the addition of
icate BECOME, as
in
(50).
f,fl
ilfl
ir
r,
I
I
k
E
$
h
li
$
E-
&
&
B
$
E
I
I
126
(50)
[ BECoME
lx
<IN-BLOSSOM>
LpvtN
my
The research reported in this paper is clearly just a start. For exampl
not all the diathesis alternations listed in Levin (1993) necessarily lel
themselves to the analysis given above. The case study presentgd
a first attempt at making explicit how verb meanings are structurt
how these meanings are expressed in syntax, and how verbs assume
tended meanings. In this regard it is an attempt at a generative
of verb meaning. Although a first glance at the range of meaninl
verb can assume gives the impression that verb meanings can
aimost unlimited ways, a closer look at the attested variations
that this is not so. As in the case of syntax, much is to be learned'fi
the constraints on these phenomena. But these constraints can only
uncovered once the descriptive work of detailing the kinds of attest
alternations is done. We hope that our work, built on the pioneerj
work of others, will provide a framework for doing just this'
more, as in syntax, our understanding of the phenlm"oo, ,rtd", Ji'
can be greatly enriched by cross-linguistic comparison. It is well-kr
that verbs in English show a greater elasticity in meaning than
verbs
inotherlanguages.4.o;--"-*"u"qple,,-!"h-""3?**gl3j.
do
so
in
cannot
rases,
di
ish can appear with
1
Conclusion
127
l)
Projection Principle conflates two separate claims. One involves the idea
verbs have structured lexical entries which register the number and the types of
arguments. The second is that these properties are configurationally encoded
levels of syntactic representation. LFG's Lexical Mapping Theory (Bresnan
iKanerva 1989) is aiso projectionist in the sense that the number and type of
is determined by the lexical entry of a verbl however, it denies the second
of the Projection Principle, namely, that these properties are configurationaiiy
at all levels of syntactic representation.
al researchers have adopted constructional approaches independently in reryears, most notably Goldberg (1995), Hoekstra (1992), and Borer (1994, in
). There are significant differences in the various instantiations of this aph, reflecting differences in the proponents' theoretical frameworks and goals.
gxample, Borer and Hoekstra assume more articulated syntactic representations
Goldberg. Goldberg clearly delineates the aspects of meaning which reside in
verb and those that are associated with each construction; she also investigates
tional polysemy, paying special attention to extended meanings which are
across constructions. Since our purpose is to contrast the constructional ap.
with the projectionist approach, we focus on the fundamental assumptions
fihe constnrctional approach, which the various instantiations share. However,
flil
iil
ifi
[ifl
fiil
;il
ifl
rffi
{[
r{
f;fi
)il
r{I
;ll
'iI
i$
fiil
,f,W
;fr
128
r,
B
I
k
t
$
I
I
fr
t
F
F
I
b
tI
I
L
D
$
B
$
F
6.
&
l1
i;
&
$
H.
ri
$
we want to point out that there is no reason to assume that all alternations in
gument expressions have a single source. In fact, Jackendoff (1990), among
129
INPV]
INe
130
Reronorvcos
131
rences
Jurij D. 1973. Regular Polysemy. Linguistics
142:5-32,
61:681-696.
50.
rff
'rffi
,fl
ky, Noam. t986. Knowledge oJ Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use.
New York: Praeger.
ty, David. 1979. Word Meani,ng a,nd Montague Grarnm,ar. Dordrecht:
'm
.Lan-
ru
ffi
fl
ffi
Press.
The
il
i
tf,
ffi
132
/ RnranoNcns
RoreneNcos
MIT
Press.
Lingua 97:123-169.
lishers.
133
fr[
in, Beth, and Malka Rappaport llovav. 1991. Wiping the Slate Clean:
A Lexical Semantic Exploration. Cognition 4Lzl23-15L.
in, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Horav. 1994. A Preliminary Analysis of
Causative Verbs in English. Lingua92:35-77.
, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Horrav. 1995. Unaccusatiuity: At the
Syntar-Ledcal Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
MIT
ru
ii
iI
1il
ut
$t
Press.
iri
ti
James.
Cambridge,
1\1[as-
I
,i
'.1[
li
{I
tl
,ii
ii
i
I