Locative Alternation: A Lexical-Constructional Approach (Constructional Approaches to Language)

Locative Alternation

Constructional Approaches to Language The series brings together research conducted within different constructional models and makes it available to scholars and students working in this and other, related approaches. The topics range from descriptions of grammatical phenomena in different languages to theoretical issues concerning language acquisition, language change, and language use. The foundation of constructional research is provided by the model known as Construction Grammar (including Frame Semantics). The book series publishes studies in which this model is developed in new directions and extended through alternative approaches. Such approaches include cognitive linguistics, conceptual semantics, interaction and discourse, as well as typologically motivated alternatives, with implications both for constructional theories and for their applications in related fields such as communication studies, computational linguistics, AI, neurology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. This peer reviewed series is committed to innovative research and will include monographs, thematic collections of articles, and introductory textbooks.

Editors Mirjam Fried

Department of Slavic Languages & Literatures, Princeton University, USA

Jan-Ola Östman

Department of Scandinavian Languages & Literature, University of Helsinki, Finland

Advisory Board Peter Auer

Seizi Iwata

Hans C. Boas

Paul Kay

William Croft

Knud Lambrecht

Charles J. Fillmore

Michael Tomasello

Adele E. Goldberg

Arnold M. Zwicky

University of Freiburg, Germany University of Texas at Austin, USA University of New Mexico, USA Int. Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, USA Princeton University, USA

Osaka City University, Japan University of California, Berkeley, USA University of Texas at Austin, USA Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany Stanford University, USA

Volume 6 Locative Alternation. A lexical-constructional approach by Seizi Iwata

Locative Alternation A lexical-constructional approach

Seizi Iwata Osaka City University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Iwata, Seizi.   Locative alternation : a lexical-constructional approach / Seizi Iwata.        p. cm. (Constructional Approaches to Language, issn 1573-594X ; v. 6) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.  Grammar, Comparative and general--Locative constructions. 2.  Grammar, Comparative and general--Verb.  I. Title. P293.3.I93    2008 415--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 1828 5 (Hb; alk. paper)

2008013293

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

To Kana

Table of contents

Acknowledgements chapter 1 Introduction 1.0 Two main objectives  1 1.1 Previous studies on the locative alternation  1 1.2 A lexical-constructional approach  4 1.3 How the corpus data are to be used  6 1.3.1 Problems of corpora  6 1.3.2 Methodology adopted in this book  8 1.4 Organization of this book  8 chapter 2 Two previous analyses 2.0 Introduction  11 2.1 Lexical rule vs. construction  11 2.1.1 Pinker (1989)  11 2.1.2 The putative derivational relationship  13 2.1.3 Goldberg (1995, 2002, 2006)  16 2.2 Which verbs alternate and which verbs do not?  18 2.3 Contributions of participant NPs and PPs  20 2.4 How is the location-as-object variant to be characterized?  22 2.5 Summary  25 chapter 3 A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 3.0 Introduction  27 3.1 A constructional analysis  27 3.2 The need for a more specific semantics  30 3.2.1 The “cover” semantics  30 3.2.2 Smear and scatter  32 3.2.3 Cram, load and pile  33 3.2.4 Short summary  34

xi

1

11

27

viii Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

A lexical-constructional approach  35 3.3.1 Levels of schematicity  35 3.3.2 Constructions as schemas  38 Shifting the alternation outside of the lexicon  40 3.4.1 Spray  40 3.4.2 Spread  42 The locatum with  46 3.5.1 Locatum with vs. instrumental with  46 3.5.2 The locatum with as an adjunct  47 3.5.3 Two different attribution relations  48 Summary  51

chapter 4 More on the location-as-object variant 4.0 Introduction  53 4.1 The usefulness of lower-level constructions  54 4.1.1 Cover-type vs. fill-type  54 4.1.2 Alternate sanctioning  55 4.2 The location-as-object variant and the holistic effect  55 4.2.1 The holistic effect  55 4.2.2 Other alternations  56 4.2.3 When the holistic effect fails  57 4.3 The location-as-object variant and telicity  58 4.4 Covering, wiping and smearing/spraying  60 4.4.1 The affinity between wiping and smearing/spraying  60 4.4.2 Rub and brush  62 4.5 Summary  64 chapter 5 Another look at putative non-alternating cases 5.0 Introduction  65 5.1 So-called non-alternating verbs  65 5.1.1 Pinker (1989) and Levin (1993)  65 5.1.2 Attested data of alternations  68 5.1.3 The different views of the alternation  70 5.2 Locatum-oriented classes  71 5.2.1 Dribble  71 5.2.2 Wind  72

53

65



5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

Table of contents

Location-oriented classes  73 5.3.1 Litter and clutter  73 5.3.2 Bind  75 The manner of motion and “cover” semantics  77 5.4.1 Dribble once again  77 5.4.2 Pour and put  79 5.4.2.1 Pour  79 5.4.2.2 Put  80 Cover and fill  81 5.5.1 Why cover and fill are exclusively location-oriented  81 5.5.2 Does fill alternate?  82 5.5.3 Why does fill marginally alternate at all?  84 Summary  85

chapter 6 The locative alternation and verb meaning 6.0 Introduction  87 6.1 A usage-based view of verb meanings  87 6.2 The lexical encoding of three alternating verbs  89 6.2.1 Load  89 6.2.2 Spray  91 6.2.3 Spread  93 6.3 Two types of lexical encoding  94 6.3.1 The scene-encoding type and the constant-insertion type  94 6.3.2 Pinker (1989)  95 6.3.3 Goldberg (1995, 2006)  96 6.4 Summary  99 chapter 7 Types of verb meaning and types of alternation 7.0 Introduction  101 7.1 Alternations exhibited by scene-encoding types  101 7.1.1 One scene yielding more than two variants  101 7.1.2 Two scenes yielding multiple variants  102 7.1.2.1 Pack  103 7.1.2.2 Trim  104 7.1.3 Summary  106

87

101

ix

x

Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

7.2

7.3 7.4

Alternations exhibited by constant-insertion types  107 7.2.1 Roll  107 7.2.2 Denominal verbs  111 7.2.3 Deadjectival verbs  114 Lexical template approach  116 Summary  118

chapter 8 Further issues 8.0 Introduction  119 8.1 Issues of acquisition  119 8.1.1 Pinker (1989)  119 8.2.2 Tomasello (1992, 2003)  121 8.2 Comparison with Goldberg (1995, 2006)  123 8.2.1 Main differences  123 8.2.2 Compatibility between verbs and constructions  124 8.2.3 Lower-level constructions vs. higher-level constructions  124 8.2.3.1 Coercion effects?  125 8.2.3.2 Lower-level constructions come before higher-level constructions  126 8.2.3.3 Evidence for what?  127 8.2.4 How “usage-based” is Goldberg’s theory?  129 8.3 Summary  131 chapter 9 The locative alternation with verbs of removal 9.0 Introduction  133 9.1 Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1991)  133 9.1.1 Lexical extension analysis  133 9.1.2 The fundamental problem  134 9.2 Analysis  135 9.2.1 The differences between the two types of alternation  135 9.2.2 A lexical-constructional view  136 9.2.3 The difference between guilt and dishes  138 9.3 Further consequences  142 9.3.1 Abstract entities that can be displaced  142 9.3.2 Entailed displacement  143 9.3.3 Cross-domain non-parallels  144 9.4 Rob  145 9.5 Summary  147

119

133



chapter 10 Morphologically complex cases 10.0 Introduction  149 10.1 Zero morphology analysis  149 10.1.1 German be-  149 10.1.2 Problems of a virtual be- analysis  151 10.1.3 The German applicative pattern is not the location-as-object variant  153 10.1.4 Does the locative alternation have to be morpho-syntactic?  156 10.2 Over-verbs and locative alternation  158 10.2.1 Non-uniform behaviors of over-verbs  158 10.2.2 Load  159 10.2.3 Overload  161 10.2.4 Three schemas for excess over-  164 10.2.5 Overspray  166 10.3 Summary  168 chapter 11 The locative alternation in Japanese 11.0 Introduction  169 11.1 Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny (1985)  170 11.1.1 Two putative characteristics of the locative alternation in Japanese  170 11.1.2 Problems  172 11.2 Analysis  175 11.2.1 Nuru  175 11.2.2 Haru  181 11.2.3 Maku  183 11.3 Further alternating verbs  184 11.4 Complex verbs  186 11.4.1 –tsukusu  186 11.4.2 More on –tsukusu  188 11.4.3 –tsukeru  192 11.4.4 –te iku  194 11.5 Verbs which appear to be exclusively location-oriented but which do alternate  195 11.5.1 Mitasu, ippai-ni suru and tsumarasu  196 11.5.2 Kazaru  197 11.5.3 Chirakasu  199

Table of contents

149

169

xi

xii Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

11.6 Other types of alternation  200 11.6.1 Kukuru-class  200 11.6.2 Mazeru-class  201 11.6.3 Sasu-class  203 11.6.4 Iru-class  203 11.7 Summary and Conclusion  204

chapter 12 Summary and conclusion 12.1 Summary  207 12.2 Concluding remarks  211

207

References 

213

Notes

221

Index of names

233

Index of subjects

235

Index of verbs

237

Index of constructions

239

Acknowledgements My interest in the locative alternation was initially sparked back in 1992, when I read Goldberg’s (1992) paper “The Inherent Semantics of Argument Structure: The Case of the English Ditransitive Construction,” which had just appeared in Cognitive Linguistics, and realized that the locative alternation is also to be approached in constructional terms. I soon began to write a paper on the locative alternation, which eventually found its way into Chapter 2 of Iwata (1998). As my ideas grew, however, it became obvious to me that they cannot be contained in a single paper. So I decided to publish a book on this topic some day. That “some day” was rather slow in coming, largely because my ideas continually changed over the years. Yet it has finally come. I’d like to thank all those who have contributed to my present thinking, and hence to the present volume. First of all, I’d like to express my gratitude to my mentors and friends at University of Tsukuba, where I spent my “formative years” as a linguist: Minoru Nakau, Yukio Hirose, Nobuhiro Kaga, Toshifusa Oka, to name a few. It is beyond doubt that interacting with all these people, as well as many former and then grad students of University of Tsukuba, laid the foundation for what I am today. I was also quite fortunate to attend a couple of undergraduate courses by Minoru Yasui, who retired from University of Tsukuba before I went on to the graduate course, but who has an enduring influence on me. Next, I am grateful to a number of practitioners of construction grammar. Like many other people in my generation, I was academically brought up in the generative tradition, so it took me a long time and a lot of efforts to realize the real significance of construction grammar and to finally commit myself to it. Of the many scholars who (knowingly or unknowingly) helped me to convert, I’d like to mention the following three people. The first person to be thanked is of course Adele Goldberg, who showed me by example that generative grammar is not the only linguistic theory, thereby making me realize that construction grammar is the theoretical framework within which I can best express my ideas. Next, I am immensely indebted to Hans Christian Boas, who made me realize where I had been headed for, and where I should proceed (I still remember the day when we really “met” in the reading room of the Dwinell Hall at UC Berkeley. Thanks, Hans!). I am also grateful to Michael Tomasello for his excellent works on language acquisition, which exorcised the ghost of innate thesis from my mind. I owe my conviction in construction grammar also to a number of other scholars whom I met over the years, both at UC Berkeley and at ICCGs (Berkeley, Helsinki,

xiv Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Marseille and Tokyo): Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay, Andreas Kathol, Jan-Ola Östman, Mirjam Fried, William Croft, Kyoko Ohara, Seiko Fujii, and Toshio Ohori, to name a few. It goes without saying that I should also mention the names of those who were of more direct help to me in bringing this book into the world. I’d like to thank again Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried as the editors of this book series for their help. Thanks also go to two anonymous reviewers, whose critical comments and suggestions helped me to significantly improve the book. Tony Higgins deserves special mention for reading the entire manuscript, giving me detailed comments, and suggesting stylistic improvements. The financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), No. 15520315, 2003–2005) is also gratefully acknowledged. Lastly, I’d like to thank Ai Rin sensei and people frequenting Wings Bell, who have always been cheering me up and have been constantly reminding me of the need to believe in myself. Surely this book could not have been completed in the present form without their moral support. Kobe, Japan December 2007  S. I.

chapter 1

Introduction 1.0  Two main objectives The main objective of the current monograph is two-fold. On the one hand, the present study seeks to give a coherent account of the locative alternation in English. A class of verbs called locative alternation verbs is known to realize either a locatum (paint or cartons) or a location (the wall or the truck) in direct object position, as in (1) and (2).1 I will call these two variants a locatum-as-object variant and a location-as-object variant, respectively.2 (1) a. Jack sprayed paint onto the wall. (locatum-as-object variant) b. Jack sprayed the wall with paint. (location-as-object variant) (2) a. Bill loaded cartons onto the truck. b. Bill loaded the truck with cartons.

In the literature many previous analyses have already been proposed, and some might feel that there is not much left to say about the locative alternation, for fundamental problems surrounding the locative alternation have already been solved in one form or another in these previous studies. In this book I will show that this is not the case. On the other, the present study aims to develop a constructional theory which overcomes a number of problems with the version proposed by Goldberg (1995, 2006), via the case study of the English locative alternation. In the sections to follow, I will elaborate on these two points.

1.1  Previous studies on the locative alternation As mentioned above, many analyses of the locative alternation have been proposed across different theoretical frameworks (Rappaport & Levin 1988; Pinker 1989; Jackendoff 1990, 1996; Gropen et al. 1991a, b; Hoffman 1991; Ackerman 1992; Farrell 1993, 1994; Rosen 1996; Goldberg 1995, 2002, 2006; Croft 1991, 1998; Kageyama 1980, 1996, 1997; Juffs 1996; Brinkmann 1997; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1998; Davis 2001; Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2001; among others). One should



Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

not be misled to believe, however, that there are as many totally different analyses of the locative alternation. Many of these proposals turn out to be surprisingly similar, at least as far as the basic view of the alternation goes. This is because since the appearance of Pinker (1989), most of the subsequent analyses have been under the influence of Pinker’s proposal in one way or another. This is most clearly seen in how the two variants are differentially characterized. Pinker (1989), working within the generative tradition, argues that the locative alternation is effected by a lexical rule on a semantic structure: I t 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. EVENT

ACT

Effect

THING [(Bob)]

THING [(paint)]

EVENT:locational

GO THING (paint)

PATH [ ] to PLACE



THING (wall)

EVENT

ACT

THING [(Bob)]

THING [(wall)]

GO

effect EVENT

means EVENT

Effect

THING PROPERTY ACT THING THING (wall)

EVENT

GO

THING PATH to PLACE



Figure 1.  The semantic structures of the two variants in Pinker (1989).

THING



Chapter 1.  Introduction

Crucially, the locatum-as-object variant and the location-as-object variant are characterized in terms of a change of location and a change of state, respectively.3 This idea has been adopted in one form or another by most, if not all, of the previous analyses of the locative alternation which attempt to semantically distinguish the two variants at all.4 Thus in both Kageyama (1997) and Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1998), the two semantic structures posited for the two variants are clearly based on the “change of location vs. change of state” thesis. (3) a.

He loaded hay on the truck. X CAUSE [BECOME [hay BE ON truck]]

b. He loaded the truck with hay. X CAUSE [BECOME [truckz BE [WITH [hay BE ON z]]]]  (Kageyama 1997: 61)

(4) a.

[[x ACT] CAUSE [y BECOME Ploc z]  [LOAD]MANNER]

b. [[x ACT] CAUSE [z BECOME []STATE WITH-RESPECT-TO y] [LOAD]MANNER]] (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1998: 261)

The “change of location vs. change of state” thesis is accepted even outside of the generative lexical semantics literature. Thus Goldberg (1995) 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-construction plus with-adjunct.” (Goldberg 1995: 179) Clearly the caused-motion construction is a construction for change of location, and Goldberg’s “causative construction” is a construction for change of state. Consequently, the contrast between the locatum-as-object variant and the locationas-object variant boils down to that between change of location and change of state in Goldberg’s account as well. Next, Croft (1998) posits Figures 2 and 3 as the semantic representations of the locatum-as-object variant and the location-as-object variant, respectively. The first row in the representation indicates the force-dynamic relations between the participants, and the second row specifies which part is profiled against the base of the whole event. Thus only part of the event structure is profiled by the locatum-asobject variant in Figure 2, but all of the event structure is denoted by the locationJane sprayed paint on the wall. X

……………... y = = = = = = = (y)

————————

z

* * * * * * * * spray * * * * * * * * * * * * * • • • on • • • • • • • • Sbj

Jane

Obj

S.Obl

paint

wall

Figure 2.  The semantic structure of the locatum-as-object variant in Croft (1998).





Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach Jane sprayed the wall with paint. X

……………... y = = = = = = = (y) ———————— z

* * * * * * * * spray * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sbj Jane

A.Obj paint

Obj wall

Figure 3.  The semantic structure of the location-as-object variant in Croft (1998).

as-object variant in Figure 3. Since Croft represents the force-dynamic relations as consisting of the three phases CAUSE, CHANGE, and STATE as in Figure 4, Figures 2 and 3 amount to the claim that the locatum-­as-object variant and the location-as-object variant express a change of location and a change of state, respectively. CAUSE

CHANGE

STATE

• ………… • = = = = = = = (•) ——————— (•) Figure 4.  Three phases of an event structure in Croft (1998).

And Davis’ (2000) analysis within the HPSG framework essentially builds upon the idea that the two variants are characterized in terms of change of location and being affected. There are two types of loading and spraying events. In one, the loader or sprayer causes the loaded or sprayed material to move, but no location is entailed to be affected. In the other, probably a subclass of the first, material is entailed to be moved to a particular location, which is thereby affected. (Davis 2001: 136)

Since Pinker uses “change of state” and “being affected” virtually interchangeably, Davis’ analysis can also be said to share Pinker’s view of the two variants. Despite the currency of the “change of location vs. change of state” thesis, though, no scholar has squarely addressed the issue of whether the notions “change of location” and “change of state” as used by Pinker are the same as the two notions as generally used outside the discussions of the locative alternation. This issue, together with a couple of others, will be the starting point of Chapter 2.

1.2  A lexical-constructional approach As will be shown in Chapter 2, one serious problem that arises with lexical rule approaches can be overcome by constructional accounts. This suggests that one can



Chapter 1.  Introduction

expect to develop an adequate account of the locative alternation by drawing on the general framework of construction grammar (Fillmore et al. 1988; Goldberg 1995; Michaelis & Lambrecht 1996; Kay & Fillmore 1999; Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2001; Kay 2002; Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004, among others). Now since an excellent constructional approach to argument structure has already been advanced by Goldberg (1995), again one might be inclined to suppose that the problem has already been settled. Yet I believe that Goldberg (1995) is a starting point, rather than the end point, of constructional approaches to argument structure. One thing still needing work concerns how to represent verb meanings. Take put as an example, which is integrated with the caused-motion construction as in Figure 5. Sem CAUSE-MOVE

Syn



PUT



V

SUBJ

OBL

OBJ

Figure 5.  The fusion of put and the caused-motion construction in Goldberg (1995).

CAUSE-MOVE is the semantics associated directly with the construction, while PUT is that of the verb. The semantic roles associated with the construction (=argument roles) are fused with those associated with the verb (=participant roles). Thus the three participant roles of put are put in a correspondence with the argument roles, resulting in the composite fused structure. In short, in Goldberg’s theory the verb meaning is represented simply as a set of semantic roles. But the need for a far more detailed analysis of verb meanings has been voiced by a number of scholars: van der Leek (1996), Nemoto (1998), Boas (2003), Iwata (2005a, b). Another respect in which Goldberg’s theory needs to be carefully reexamined concerns levels of schematicity of the constructions posited. Goldberg (1995) argues for the following argument structure constructions. 1.  Ditransitive 2.  Caused-motion 3.  Resultative 4.  Intransitive Motion 

X causes Y to receive Z Subj V Obj Obj2 X causes Y to move Z Subj V Obj Obl X causes Y to become Z Subj V Obj Xcomp X moves Y Subj V Obl (adapted from Goldberg 1995: 3)





Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Notice, however, that these constructions are quite abstract, with a skeletal syntax and a highly schematic semantics. In recent years, some scholars have begun to wonder whether these abstract constructions are really sufficient, pointing out the necessity to refer to lower-level exemplars or lower-level constructions: Boas (2003, 2005), Iwata (2006b), among others. In the chapters to follow, I will show that by taking into consideration both the need for a more careful analysis of verb meanings and levels of schematicity, a theory of constructions which takes a fundamentally usage-based view will emerge. This approach will be called a lexical-constructional approach.

1.3  How the corpus data are to be used5 1.3.1  Problems of corpora While generative grammar has relied heavily on introspective judgments for data collection, the validity of this methodology has been called into question (Schütze 1996; Sampson 2001; among others). Specifically, linguists’ intuitions do not necessarily coincide with the linguistic data as it is actually observed: It is easy to show that people believe quite sincerely that they say things which they never do say, and, more strikingly, that they never say things which they in fact frequently say. (Sampson 2001: 136)

It is quite natural, therefore, that the emergence of large-scale corpora, as well as the availability of the Google search engine, has been welcomed by those dissatisfied with the practice of formally-oriented linguists, for corpora are very useful tools to find data that have been overlooked by linguists. This trend, coupled with the usage-based model’s assumption that the frequency of a particular linguistic expression plays a crucial role in structuring a language, has led to the practice by those committed to the usage-based view (Bybee 2001, 2007; among others) of using corpora to gauge frequency. Now as briefly mentioned at the end of the last section, the version of constructional account to be developed in this book will take a fundamentally usage-based view of language. Some might expect, then, that the analysis to be developed below will also crucially involve frequency counts of particular expressions in corpora. Somewhat surprising to those who strongly believe in corpora, however, I will not base my theory on frequency counts alone. In fact, I am not as enthusiastic about the use of corpora as some scholars who dismiss constructed sentences as unreliable and useless (forgetting that they themselves have constructed many similar sentences in developing their own theories), and who talk as if only the data attested in some corpus is all that counts.



Chapter 1.  Introduction

The reason why I take this somewhat cool attitude toward corpora should be obvious to those who have given this issue enough serious thought. As Takizawa (2007) neatly summarizes, there are four types of data: (1) possible and attested, (2) possible but not attested, (3) impossible and not attested, and (4) impossible and attested. Now one serious problem of corpora as a tool for data collection is that type (2) and type (3) cannot be distinguished. After all, neither type of data can be found in a corpus. Also, no corpora can tell us the distinction between type (1) and type (4), even when some “attested” data are judged by everyone to be simple errors. In other words, it is quite difficult to identify type (4) data as such. It goes without saying that this last problem becomes even more acute when one uses data drawn form the web, which contains many sentences by non-native speakers of English. Given these inherent problems of corpus data, then, simply counting the frequency in a particular corpus will surely run the risk of producing a skewed picture of actual linguistic data. Some might argue that these problems could be alleviated if one were to use large-scale corpora. But in actuality, no corpus can be as large as the set of all possible utterances, which are constantly being produced and thus represent an ever-evolving set. So this is far from a viable solution. Faced with this situation, we have to content ourselves with counting the frequency in a particular corpus, on the assumption that the chosen corpus is somehow “representative.” But then, a natural question that arises is “How representative is a given corpus?” The severity of this problem is most convincingly illustrated by Newmeyer (2003). One corpus that is widely applied is derived from the New York Times. But no child learns English by being read to from the Times! Another is the “Switchboard Corpus”, a database of spontaneous telephone conversations by over five hundred American English speakers … The Switchboard Corpus explicitly encompasses conversations from a wide variety of speech communities. But how could usage facts from a speech community to which one does not belong have any relevance whatsoever to the nature of one’s grammar? (Newmeyer 2003: 696)

If we honestly answer this question, we have only to say “I don’t know.” It is an undeniable fact that no objectively falsifiable way is available to know the representativity of a given corpus. Some might claim that it is a reasonable assumption to hold a particular corpus to be representative enough, but an assumption is an assumption. Consequently, no one can be sure about the real significance of counting the occurrences of an expression in a given corpus. Yet in actual practice, linguists quite often talk as if they are sure about the representativiy of the corpus which they use, to the effect that such and such a corpus is reliable. Why is this possible? Because those linguists rely on their own





Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

intuitions, whether consciously or unconsciously, in appraising the reliability of the corpus. Thus while the emergence of corpora certainly helps us linguists to uncover data that have so far been overlooked, the inherent problems of corpora can be compensated only by recourse to our intuitions, after all. If asked about why they choose to use corpora, those who identify themselves as corpus linguists will probably answer that because they wish to see the language as it is, unlike some formally-oriented linguists. But then, they should not avert their eyes from all these problems. Otherwise, they run the risk of seeing the language as they wish it to be. 1.3.2  Methodology adopted in this book I am not claiming that corpora are of no use, of course. I am simply pointing out that we should be cautious about the corpus data, particularly when we attempt to draw a certain conclusion from frequency counts, and that it is not solely a matter of either corpora or intuition; we need both. For these reasons, I will adopt a “compromise” position in this book, as have many others. It seems safe to say that among the easily available corpora, the British National Corpus (henceforth BNC) is the most reliable: it is large enough (100 million words) and covers both spoken and written materials (fiction, newspaper, academic, etc.) whose authenticity seems to be unquestionable. So when I wish to make some statistical claim at all, I will use the BNC data. When my aim is simply to point out that a given expression is actually possible, I will use data obtained from Google searches.

1.4  Organization of this book This book is organized as follows. After pointing out several problems of two representative previous studies (i.e., Pinker 1989 and Goldberg 1995, 2006) in Chapter 2, an alternative is advanced in Chapter 3, namely a lexical-constructional account. Chapter 4 further discusses how the location-as-object variant is to be characterized, and chapter 5 examines certain verbs which have so far been claimed not to alternate, but which do in fact alternate sometimes. Chapter 6 argues from a usage-based view that verb meanings are also abstractions over usage-events, just as constructions are abstractions over usage-events, and that verb meanings divide into two types and are, therefore, not uniformly representable. Chapter 7 illustrates how different types of verb meaning interact with constructions to exhibit a variety of alternations. Chapter 8 gives larger considerations



Chapter 1.  Introduction

as to how the proposed lexical-constructional account compares with Pinker’s theory and Goldberg’s. The ensuing three chapters discuss alternations that have been only briefly touched upon or that remain altogether unaddressed in either Pinker (1989) or in Goldberg (1995, 2006). This includes the locative alternation with verbs of removal (clear dishes from the table/clear the table of dishes) in Chapter 9, the alternation involving morphologically complex verbs in Chapter 10, and the locative alternation in Japanese in Chapter 11. Chapter 12 gives a summary and conclusions.



chapter 2

Two previous analyses 2.0  Introduction As noted in 1.1, of the many previous studies of the locative alternation, Pinker (1989) is undoubtedly the most influential, in that most of the subsequent analyses have somehow adopted Pinker’s view of the alternation. So in this chapter I will start by reviewing his analysis and pointing out problems of his lexical rule approach. In order to overcome these problems a constructional approach is deemed preferable, and in this respect Goldberg (1995, 2006) warrants mention next. Nevertheless, Goldberg’s theory too has its own problems, which will in turn be dealt with. 2.1  Lexical rule vs. construction 2.1.1  Pinker (1989) Pinker (1989) takes a lexical rule approach to the locative alternation, along with the causative, dative, and active-passive alternations. Very briefly, this approach assumes that one of the variants is more basic, from which the other is lexically derived. Accordingly, the locative alternation is claimed to arise via 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 fact that the basic sense and the newly created sense occur in different syntactic frames follows from the linking mechanism: Pinker assumes that syntactic frames like [NP V NP] or [NP V NP NP] are associated with thematic cores, where a thematic core is defined as “a schematization of a type of event or relationship that lies at the core of the meanings of a class of possible verbs” (p. 73). Since, according to this view, a given verb may appear in a syntactic frame whose associated thematic core it is compatible with, it is an automatic consequence that the two senses, which are semantically different, appear in different syntactic frames.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Thus in the case of spray, the basic sense (‘spray1’) is compatible with the thematic core associated with the [NP V NP into/onto NP] frame, and therefore appears in that frame. In contrast, the newly created sense (‘spray2’) is compatible with a different thematic core, thereby ending up in the [NP V NP with NP] frame.

Verbs:

Thematic cores:

Syntactic frame:

‘spray1’ substance moves in a mist

lexical rule

Move substance in a particular manner to an object

V NP into/onto NP

‘spray2’ surface is covered with drops by moving mist

Affect object in a particular way by adding substance

V NP with NP

Figure 1.  The lexical rule approach in Pinker (1989).

According to this theory, the possibility of entering into an alternation is ascribed to the availability of the putative lexical rule. There are verbs like pour, which are content-oriented and therefore can appear in the locatum-as-object syntax alone as in (1), and there are verbs like cover, which are container-oriented and can occur in the location-as-object syntax alone as in (2). The putative lexical rule is claimed to be unavailable for these non-alternating verbs. (1) a. She poured water into the glass. b. *She poured the glass with water. (2) a. *She covered a rug over the floor. b. She covered the floor with a rug.

In contrast, with locative alternation verbs the basic sense is either content-oriented (smear, pile, spray, scatter-classes) or container-oriented (cram and load-classes) and allows only one of the variants, but the sense newly created via the application of a lexical rule allows the other variant. (As indicated by the double-sided arrow in Figure 1, the derivation goes in either direction.) content-oriented classes 1. Smear-class: Simultaneous forceful contact and motion of a mass against a surface: brush, dab, daub, drape, dust, hang, plaster, settle, slather, smear, smudge, spread, streak, swab 2. Pile-class: Vertical arrangement on a horizontal surface: heap, pile, stack



Chapter 2.  Two previous analyses 

3. Spray-class: Force is imparted to a mass, causing ballistic motion in a specified spatial distribution along a trajectory: drizzle, inject, shower, spatter, splash, splatter, spray, sprinkle, squirt 4. Scatter-class: Mass is caused to move in a widespread or nondirected ­distribution: plant, scatter, seed, sew, sow, strew container-oriented classes 1. Cram-class: A mass is forced into a container against the limit of its capacity: cram, crowd, jam, stuff, wad 2. 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, (Pinker 1989: 126–127) pack, stock Another feature of Pinker’s analysis concerns the characterization of the two variants. Pinker argues as follows: 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)

That is, the contrast between a locatum-as-object variant and a location-as-object variant is characterized as that between change of location and change of state. 2.1.2  The putative derivational relationship Lexical rule approaches to the locative alternation in English have one fundamental problem: As noted above, one of the two variants should be more basic, but there is little, if any, independent evidence to support the asymmetry between the two variants. Yet Pinker claims that with content-oriented classes the locatum-asobject variant is more basic, while with container-oriented classes the locationas-object variant is so, as just seen. Pinker bases directionality of the derivation on 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 locatum-as-object variant to the location-asobject variant as in (3). If the goal NP, but not the theme NP, stands alone, then the derivation is from the location-as-object variant to the locatum-as-object variant as in (4). When either argument can stand as sole complement as in (5), the derivation can go in either direction. (3) a. He piled the books. b. *He piled the shelf. (4) a. *He stuffed the breadcrumbs. b. He stuffed the turkey.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(5) a. He loaded the gun. b. He loaded the bullets.

(Pinker 1989: 125)

However, 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 neither the theme nor the goal argument to stand alone as in (6), and some verbs allow either argument to stand alone as in (7). (6)

a. John heaped books on the shelf. b. John heaped the shelf with books. c. *?John heaped the books. d. *John heaped the shelf.

(7)

a. b. c. d.

John packed books into the box. John packed the box with books. John packed the books. John packed the box.

(Pinker 1989: 38–39)

Moreover, individual verbs in the same class do not behave uniformly. Thus with pile, the theme NP, but not the goal NP, stands alone, and this fact is taken as evidence that the pile-class is content-oriented, i.e., the locatum-as-object variant is the derivational base. (8) a. He piled the books onto the shelf. b. He piled the shelf with the books. (9) a. He piled the books. b. *He piled the shelf.

(Pinker 1989: 125)

However, with heap, neither the theme NP nor the goal NP can stand alone, despite the fact that heap is also a member of the pile-class. (10) a. Pat heaped mash potatoes onto her plate. b. Pat heaped her plate with mash potatoes.

(Goldberg 1995: 177)

(11) a. *Pat heaped mash potatoes. b. *Pat heaped her plate.

(Goldberg 1995: 177)

The same problem arises with the cram-class. With stuff the goal NP, but not the theme NP, stands alone. Pinker takes this fact as evidence that the cramclass is container-oriented, i.e., the location-as-object variant is the derivational base. (12) a. He stuffed the breadcrumbs into the turkey. b. He stuffed the turkey with the breadcrumbs. (13) a. *He stuffed the breadcrumbs. b. He stuffed the turkey.

(Pinker 1989: 125)



Chapter 2.  Two previous analyses

However, this is not the case with cram, which is the very verb which the class in question is named after, and which should therefore be representative of this class. Again, neither the theme NP nor the goal NP can stand alone. (14) a. Pat crammed pennies into the jar. b. Pat crammed the jar with pennies.

(Goldberg 1995: 177)

(15) a. *Pat crammed the pennies. b. *Pat crammed the jar.

(Goldberg 1995: 177)

In short, different alternating verbs behave differently with respect to the obligatoriness of an argument. Accordingly, if one strictly follows the sole complement test, the resulting classification of the alternating verbs will be at odds with Pinker’s own classification seen above. Furthermore, it is not clear what is the status of the derivational asymmetry entailed by Pinker’s classification. In recent years, it has come to be recognized that which expression is felt to be more basic and which expression more derivative is actually a reflection of frequency (Bybee 2001). If Pinker’s classification reflects people’s intuitions about the basicness, then it is expected that with smear-, pile-, spray-, and scatter-classes the locatum-as-object variant should be more frequent, while with cram- and load-classes the location-as-object variant should be more frequent. So I manually counted the occurrences of the two variants across several alternating verbs in the BNC. The results are summarized in Table 1, where the cell for the more frequent variant is shaded for each verb. Table 1.  The BNC counts of the two variants of alternating verbs Locatum-as-object smear pile spray

scatter cram load

33 [+3] (on) 3 (onto) 60 [+1] (on) 6 [+3] (onto) 6 [+1] (onto) 1 [+1] (on to) 14 [+6] (on) 9 (into) 25 [+3] (over) 167 [+8] (over) 60 (around) 30 (about) 94 (into) 82 (into) 41 (onto) 32 (on) 1 (on to)

Location-as-object 73

(with)

121

(with)

82 [+29] (with)

65

(with)

134 406

(with) (with)



 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

The number indicates the occurrence of a particular variant accompanied by the preposition in parentheses. Additionally, since direct object NPs may be deleted in certain contexts, particularly in recipe contexts (Massam & Roberge 1989), the number of such object-deletion cases is also indicated in angle brackets.1 For ­instance, the two cells for smear indicate that instances like smear the blood on the doorposts are 33, those like smearing cautiously on another of those rounded breaks are 3, those like smear copper anti-seize compound onto the wheel face are 3, and those like smeared the chicken with edenwort are 73. Only instances in the concrete, physical sense involving tangible objects are counted. Thus instances like spread your premium payments over 12 monthly installments or load a program into a computer are not included. It is quite obvious that the frequency count of the BNC data is far from a corroboration of Pinker’s putative derivational asymmetry. While the location-asobject variant is more frequent in the case of cram and load, in accordance with their classification as container-oriented, the location-as-object variant is also more frequent even with three alternating verbs of the content-oriented classes (smear, pile, and spray). What is more, individual verbs in the same class do not behave uniformly (again). Thus while with smear the location-as-object variant is more frequent, as shown in Table 1, with spread, also a member of the smear-class, the locatumas-object variant is more frequent, as shown in Table 2. Table 2.  The BNC counts of the two variants of spread spread

Locatum-as-object

Location-as-object

204 (on)

128 [+7] (with)

91 (over)

Thus Pinker’s sole complement test does not establish the asymmetry between the two variants, which is necessitated by lexical rule approaches. Besides, the claimed derivational asymmetry between the two variants is rather suspect, in view of the frequency count of the BNC data. In the absence of any clear indications as to which variant is more basic, what will be gained by derivationally relating the two variants? All this indicates is that Pinker’s analysis does not overcome the fundamental problem of lexical rule approaches noted at the outset. 2.1.3  Goldberg (1995, 2002, 2006) At this point, let us turn to Goldberg’s (1995, 2002, 2006) constructional account. Goldberg argues that constructions are form-meaning correspondences which exist independently of particular verbs, carry meaning, and specify the syntactic



Chapter 2.  Two previous analyses 

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 2.

PUT



V

SUBJ

OBL

OBJ

Sem CAUSE-MOVE

Syn

Figure 2.  The fusion of put and the caused-motion construction in Goldberg (1995).

CAUSE-MOVE 〈cause goal theme〉 is the semantics associated directly with the construction, while PUT 〈putter, put.place, puttee〉 is that of the verb. The semantic roles associated with the construction (=argument roles) are fused with those associated with the verb (=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 (1995) 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-construction plus with-adjunct” (p. 179). spray2

spray1 linking rules

linking rules

He sprayed paint on the wall

He sprayed the wall with paint

(a) lexical rule approach

spray He sprayed paint on the wall

He sprayed the wall with paint

(b) constructional approach

Figure 3.  Lexical rule approach vs. constructional approach.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Here lies a crucial difference between lexical rule approaches and constructional approaches. Constructional approaches assume that the two variants come from a single verb meaning, as in Figure 3 (b), to be contrasted with Pinker’s lexical rule approach in Figure 3 (a). This crucial difference allows constructional approaches to circumvent the problem facing lexical rule approaches: Since the locative alternation is not a matter of deriving one variant from the other, one no longer needs to worry about which variant is more basic. In this respect, therefore, Goldberg’s constructional account is advantageous over Pinker’s lexical rule account. 2.2  Which verbs alternate and which verbs do not? But this does not mean that Goldberg’s account is fully satisfactory. One thing that should be addressed in an account of the locative alternation is which verbs alternate and which verbs do not. Let us see how this question is handled in Goldberg’s account. In Goldberg’s theory, whether a given verb enters into the locative alternation or not translates into the issue of whether that verb can be fused with two constructions or not. The fusion of verbs and constructions is regulated by the following two principles:  e Semantic Coherence Principle: Only roles which are semantically compatible Th 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. (Goldberg 1995: 50)

Crucially, the Correspondence Principle dictates that profiled participant roles are fused with profiled argument roles. The definition of profiling runs thusly: 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.2 How the fusion works is illustrated as follows. Spray exhibits an intransitive variant as in (16c), besides a locatum-as-object variant in (16a) and a location-asobject variant in (16b). (16) a. Bob sprayed paint onto the wall. b. Bob sprayed the wall with paint. c. Water sprayed onto the lawn.

(locatum-as-object variant) (location-as-object 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.3



Chapter 2.  Two previous analyses 

(17) spray 〈sprayer, target, liquid〉 

(adapted from Goldberg 1995: 178)

Now this lexical entry of spray interacts with two constructions as follows:  e fact that the target can be construed as a type of patient, in that the entity which Th is sprayed can be construed as totally affected, 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 goal-path.  (Goldberg 1995: 179)

Essentially the same analysis is repeated in Goldberg (2006: 41), the sole difference being that the with phrase is now characterized as INTERMEDIARY. (18) a.

Caused-motion (e.g., Pat loaded the hay onto the truck) CAUSE-MOVE (cause theme path/location) Load (loader loaded-theme container)

b. Causative construction + with construction (e.g., Pat loaded the truck with hay) CAUSE (cause patient) + INTERMEDIARY (instrument) Load (loader container loaded-theme) (Goldberg 2006: 41)

Again, the same two principles are held to be responsible for the fusion of verbs and constructions:  wo general principles can be understood to constrain the ways in which the T participant roles of a verb and the argument roles of a construction can be put into correspondence or “fused”: the Semantic Coherence Principle and the ­Correspondence Principle. (Goldberg 2006: 39–40)

One small difference is that Goldberg (2006) explicitly admits that the Correspondence Principle is a default principle: As a default principle, the Correspondence Principle can be overridden by particular constructions that specify that a particular argument be deemphasized and expressed by an oblique or not at all. (Goldberg 2006: 40)

Accordingly, it is now clear that the Semantic Coherence Principle is largely responsible for the fusion of a verb and a construction. Yet all the Semantic Coherence Principle requires is that the participant roles (of the verb) instantiate the argument roles (of the construction):  e Semantic Coherence Principle ensures that the participant role of the verb Th and the argument role of the construction must be semantically compatible. In particular, the more specific participant role of the verb must be construable as an instance of the more general argument role.  (Goldberg 2006: 40, emphasis mine)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Put differently, the issue of compatibility between verbs and constructions is held to be simply one of compatibility between semantic roles. Accordingly, the issue of which verbs alternate and which verbs do not boils down to the issue of matching role labels: As the above quote shows, all Goldberg says about why spray can alternate results from the fact that its participant roles are construable as instances of argument roles of the two constructions. But it seems unlikely that alternating verbs can be properly distinguished from non-alternating verbs by reference to participant roles alone: Thus it is hard to believe that the participant roles of pour are that much different from those of, say, spray. In the worst case, Goldberg’s practice of matching role labels is tantamount to saying that the verb and the construction can be fused because the full expression is actually acceptable. This is clearly circular. As far as the predictability of the possibility of alternation is concerned, then, Goldberg’s theory has nothing substantial to say: The practice of representing verb meanings (and constructional meanings, for that matter) in terms of a set of semantic roles and leaving it at that does not carry one very far. If anything, Pinker’s detailed descriptions of verb meanings are far more revealing.

2.3  Contributions of participant NPs and PPs The third issue concerns the contributions of NPs and PPs with which the verb combines to form a sentence. To see this, consider the following. The verb spread enters into the locative alternation like other alternation verbs, as in (19). However, the alternation is not always possible. Thus in (20) only the locatum-as-object variant is permitted. (19) a. He spread butter on the bread. b. He spread the bread with butter. (20) a. He spread a blanket on the sleeping child. b. *He spread the sleeping child with a blanket.

Clearly, the contrast between (19) and (20) is somehow effected by the contributions of NPs and PPs. How is this contrast to be captured in Pinker’s theory? In the generative framework (within which Pinker (1989) is to be situated), lexical rules should apply prior to lexical insertion. Thus the contributions of NPs and PPs should not play a role in determining the possibility of alternations. In order to account for the above contrast, then, Pinker would have to posit two versions of spread, only one of which can undergo a putative lexical rule. Thus both spread1A and



Chapter 2.  Two previous analyses 

spread1B appear as locatum-as-object variants, but only the former can be turned into spread2, which ends up as a location-as-object variant. spread1A (locatum-as-object variant) → spread2 (location-as-object variant) spread1B (locatum-as-object variant) DNA

It goes without saying that this is far from a satisfactory solution: there seems no independent reason to posit the second verb, spread1B, save, of course, for the need to explain the ill-formedness of (20b). Goldberg’s account fares no better. In her theory the lexical entry in (22) would be posited for spread, because neither the role of theme nor that of goal may stand as sole complement, unless (21a) is interpreted as a contextually deleted version of (19a) (# indicates that the sentence is acceptable only as a contextually deleted version). (21) a. #He spread butter. b. *He spread the bread. (22) spread 〈spreader, semi-liquid, [target]〉

As seen above, fusion of argument roles and participant roles is effected by matching those roles. But simply matching role labels does not account for why spread can be fused with the causative construction in (19b) but not in (20b). Again, it might be possible to posit a different lexical entry for the spread in (20). A reviewer claims that there is evidence to do so, in that John spread his arms and butter on the bread is zeugmatic, suggesting that there are different and incompatible senses of spread. Yet a problem that immediately arises is how the differentiation is to be achieved in Goldberg’s theory. Conceivably, the lexical entry of the second version of spread will look something like: (23) spread 〈spreader, non-liquid, [target]〉

This is basically the same as (22), as far as the profiling status of arguments is concerned. So fusion of the second spread with the causative construction cannot be ruled out by the Correspondence Principle. The fusion cannot be ruled out by the Semantic Coherence Principle, either, for there is no evidence that the non-liquid role in (23) is semantically incompatible with the patient role of the causative construction.4 In other words, the lexical entry in (23) is identical to that in (22) in relevant respects; it in itself does not tell us why (22), but not (23), can be fused with the causative construction. In short, the contrast between (19) and (20) strongly indicates the need to pay attention to NPs and PPs as well in accounting for the possibility of alternation,

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

after all. But both Pinker and Goldberg, or most of the previous studies for that matter, hold verbs alone to be responsible for the alternation.5 2.4  How is the location-as-object variant to be characterized? As seen above, both Pinker and Goldberg characterize the contrast between the locatum-as-object variant and the location-as-object variant as that between change of location and change of state.6 The first part of this characterization seems to be unproblematic: the locatum-as-object variant seems to be rightly characterized in terms of change of location. Things are different with the second part, however. First, the label “change of state” is too general. Thus in Pinker’s theory, simply characterizing the locationas-object variant in terms of change of state and leaving it at that entails that the location-as-object variant should be on a par with “typical” change of state verbs like break. Goldberg (2002) seems to regard this as a virtue rather than a problem. According to her, the two cases ought to be handled by means of one and the same mechanism.7 (24) a. Pat loaded the wagon with hay. b. Pat broke the window with a hammer.

(Goldberg 2002: 340)

 ormally it (=the with in [(24a)]) shares the same preposition with prototypiF cal instrumentals, not only in English, but also in a number of other languages. Semantically, the entity encoded by the with phrase is in both cases manipulated by the subject argument and serves to effect the change of state entailed by the sentence. In both cases, the argument of with serves as an intermediary in the causal chain. (Goldberg 2002: 340)

However, the two cases are significantly different. On the one hand, the with phrase in the location-as-object variant is distinct from the instrument with. The distinctness is underscored by the fact that the two with phrases may co-occur. (25) He loaded the wagon with hay with a fork.

On the other, the location-as-object variant behaves differently from uncontroversial change of state verbs. In the literature, verbs like (26a) have been traditionally called change of state verbs, as distinct from those like (26b) (Fillmore 1970; Tsunoda 1985; Croft 1991; Dowty 1991; Levin 1999). (26) a. cut, destroy, kill, break, open, melt, etc. (=Agent acts on and causes an effect on Patient) b. hit, shoot, kick, eat, etc. (=Agent acts on Patient)



Chapter 2.  Two previous analyses 

Change of state verbs are characteristically unspecified as to how the result state is achieved. For instance, it is possible to break a glass in various ways: by dropping it, by throwing it against a fence, or by throwing a stone against it (cf. Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991). In contrast, when one sprays a wall with paint, one follows a certain course of action (e.g., using an aerosol), and it is very difficult to imagine a situation in which one achieves the result state without following this course of action. In this respect, then, the location-as-object variant is not exactly the same as verbs like break. The difference between the location-as-object variant and typical change of state verbs like break also manifests itself with respect to the possibility of “secondary location” PPs. In the literature verbs like (26b) are known to exhibit a secondary location phrase, which further specifies exactly which part of the patient is acted on. (27) a. Bill hit Harry in the nose. b. The horse kicked Penny in the shin.

(Jackendoff 1990: 110) (Levin 1993: 71)

It is also known that this secondary location phrase cannot be added to change of state verbs like break or cut. (28) a. *The horse broke Penny in the shin. b. The horse broke Penny’s shin. (29) a. *The glass cut Rachel in the toe. b. The glass cut Rachel’s toe.

(Levin 1993: 72)

Remarkably, this secondary location phrase is found with some location-as-object variants. (30) a. By-and-by, one group after another came straggling back to the mouth of the cave, panting, hilarious, smeared from head to foot with tallow drippings, daubed with clay, and entirely delighted with the success of the day.  (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/sawyr-XXIX.html) b. The girl herself is smeared from the waist downward with a red dye made from the cam-wood tree. (http://djvued.libs.uga.edu/text/sotbtxt.txt) c. Treated plants were sprayed on leaf surfaces with a solution of chitosan dissolved in dl-lactic acid or beta-d-galactopyranuronic acid.  (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6407040.html) d. I lay on a towelled “wet bed” where I was treated to a Vichy shower (a fancy term for being sprayed from head to toe with warm water).  (http://www.journeywoman.com/herspastop/bermuda.html)

This once again argues for the need to distinguish the location-as-object variant from typical change of state verbs like break.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Another major problem is that at least some location-as-object variants do not conform to the template for a change of state. According to Pinker, the ­location-asobject variant should (typically) describe a change from the old state in which the locatum is not in/on the location, to a new state in which the location is completely covered, filled or saturated (Recall the characterization of load as undergoing a change of state “from empty to full” in the above quote from Pinker). The locatum is not on the location old state

The location is (completely) covered/filled/saturated. new state

Figure 4.  The putative change of state embodied by a location-as-object variant.

Apparently, this “change of state” attributed to the location-as-object variant completely parallels the change of state expressed by verbs like break as in Figure 5, and therefore fits the general notion of change of state. not broken

broken

old state

new state

Figure 5.  Change of state embodied by break.

However, the “change of state” described by location-as-object variants does not necessarily fit this description. On the one hand, the putative “old state” need not obtain. As Rappaport & Levin (1988: 26, fn. 23) observe, (31) could be used felicitously even if the plants were still wet from a previous spraying. (31) Linda sprayed the plants with water.

Also, one can smear a wall with paint even if there is already some paint on the wall (Ramon Escamilla, personal communication). On the other hand, a “new state” need not be attained. Jackendoff (1996) observes that the end state of being covered or filled is not necessary with the locative alternation verbs in the location-as-object variant.8 (32) Bill {sprayed/smeared/dabbed/splashed} the wall with paint (for ten minutes), but it still wasn’t covered. (Jackendoff 1996: 346)

Nor is the putative “new state” necessarily the end point. In (33) the atelic reading becomes possible because even after the wall is completely covered, one can go on putting paint on it indefinitely (Dowty 1991: 591–592). In other words, for an



Chapter 2.  Two previous analyses 

hour modifies the time period subsequent to the alleged end point, rather than the process leading up to the end point. (33) John sprayed this wall with paint for an hour.

To sum up, with change of state verbs like break, (1) a transition from non-P to P is described, (2) a new state is necessarily attained, and (3) once the new state obtains, one cannot go on any longer. But with the location-as-object variant of a locative alternation verb, these characteristics do not always obtain.9,10 2.5  Summary In the course of critically reviewing Pinker (1989) and Goldberg (1995, 2002, 2006), the following four points have become clear. First, a constructional approach is preferable over a lexical rule approach, in that the former does not have to worry about the derivational asymmetry, which is actually hard to prove. In this respect, Goldberg’s account seems more promising. But second, a more detailed examination of verb meanings than Goldberg’s account is necessary. Third, contributions of participant NPs and PPs should be taken into consideration. And fourth, characterizing the location-as-object variant in terms of change of state is problematic. In what follows, I will show how all these problems can be solved.

chapter 3

A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 3.0  Introduction In the last chapter, we have come to the following four points: 1. A constructional approach is preferable over a lexical rule approach. 2. A more detailed examination of verb meanings is necessary. 3. Contributions of participant NPs and PPs should be taken into account. 4. Characterizing the location-as-object variant in terms of change of state is problematic. It goes without saying that an adequate account of the locative alternation should meet all these demands. Of these four requirements, it is rather straightforward to meet the first and second ones, as combining these two requirements will automatically lead to a constructional approach that pays more attention to verb meanings than Goldberg’s account. In my earlier works (Iwata 2002, 2005a, 2005b) I have argued for such a lexical-constructional approach. But the version of lexical-constructional account to be developed in this study also takes a radically usage-based view (cf. Iwata 2004b), which will turn out to be necessary to meet the third and fourth requirements. In this chapter, I will show how my lexical-constructional approach can give a coherent account of the locative alternation in English by meeting all the demands noted above. I will start by briefly sketching a constructional analysis. 3.1  A constructional analysis In what follows, I will use the term “construction” as defined in construction grammar (Fillmore et al. 1988; Goldberg 1995; Michaelis & Lambrecht 1996; Kay & Fillmore 1999; Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2001; Kay 2002; Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004, among others). Two main features of construction grammar are briefly mentioned below.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

First, construction grammar is a non-derivational theory, where syntactic and semantic commonalities shared between different expressions are captured by multiple instantiation rather than by derivation. Thus (1a), (1b) and (1c) all instantiate the caused-motion construction in the sense of Goldberg (1995). (1b) and (1c), rather than undergoing further syntactic transformations, additionally instantiate the passive construction and the it-cleft construction, respectively, as in Figure 1. (1) a. John put the box on the table. b. The box was put onto the table. c. It was John who put the box on the table. It-cleft construction

caused-motion construction

passive construction

Syn: [………..]

Syn: [………..]

Syn: [………..]

Sem: “………”

Sem: “……….”

Sem: “……….”

Syn: John put the box on

Syn: The box was put

the table Sem: “………….”

onto the table Sem: “…………..”

Syn: It was John who put the box on the table Sem: “………….…..”

Figure 1.  Multiple instantiantion.

Second, constructions are necessarily symbolic: any pairing of form and meaning (or function) can count as a construction. Constructions thus conceived are taken to be basic units of language. One thing that needs clarification at this point is whether construction gram­ ­mar is a theory suitable for idiom-like phenomena alone. Many scholars seem to feel that constructions are special mechanisms that come to rescue non-compositional cases like (2), which cannot be dealt with by the mechanisms that handle the formmeaning correspondences of ordinary, compositional cases. (2) a. He sneezed the napkin off the table. b. She baked him a cake. c. Dan talked himself blue in the face.

(Goldberg 1995: 9)

Undoubtedly, this feeling can be traced back to Goldberg (1995), who is generally held to define a construction as a linguistic expression whose meaning cannot be



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

computed from its parts. In fact, Goldberg (1995) gives an explicit definition to this effect: C is a construction iffdef C is a form-meaning pair 〈Fi, Si〉 such that some aspect of Fi or some aspect of Si is not strictly predictable from C’s component parts or from other previously established constructions. (Goldberg 1995: 4)

In actual practice, however, Goldberg is ambivalent on this point. Quite often, she uses the term “construction” without bothering about the (non)compositionality of the linguistic expression in question. Thus in discussing how to capture generalizations across constructions, Goldberg (1995: 108–110) speaks of an inheritance hierarchy of constructions as depicted in Figure 2. Subj.-Pred. Construction Intransitive

Transitive Caused-Motion Ditransitive Intransitive Motion

Figure 2.  Relations among constructions (Goldberg 1995: 109).

A very general Subj.-Pred construction at the top is inherited by Intransitive and Transitive Constructions, which are then inherited by Intransitive and Transitive Caused-Motion Constructions. This clearly indicates that Caused-Motion Constructions are situated in the system that handles the form-meaning correspondence in general. Furthermore, in her later works (Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004; Goldberg 2006) Goldberg explicitly states that fully compositional expressions may count as constructions: Construction grammar defines constructions to be any stored pairings of form and function; …In addition, stored (typically highly frequent) regularities between form and meaning are considered constructions even if they are fully compositional.  (Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004: 533, fn.1, emphasis mine)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as long as some aspect of its form or function is not strictly predictable from its component parts or from other constructions recognized to exist. In addition, patterns are stored as constructions even if they are fully predictable as long as they occur with sufficient frequency.  (Goldberg 2006: 5, emphasis mine)

Despite appearances, therefore, constructions are not the special mechanisms that are needed to account for non-compositional cases alone. In fact, that constructions are intended by construction grammarians to capture both compositional and non-compositional cases can be appreciated by having a look at the dichotomy proposed by Michaelis (2003, 2004). Michaelis divides constructions into two types, concord constructions and shift constructions, as defined in (3a) and (3b), respectively. (3) a.

Concord construction. A construction which denotes the same kind of entity or event as the lexical expression with which it is combined.

b. Shift construction. A construction which denotes a different kind of entity or event from the lexical expression with which it is combined.  (Michaelis 2004: 28–29)

Michaelis argues that in the case of shift constructions the overriding principle in (4) is at work.

(4) The overriding principle: If a lexical item is semantically compatible with its morphosyntactic context, the meaning of the lexical item conforms to the meaning of the structure in which it is embedded.  (Michaelis 2004: 25)

Clearly, this amounts to the same thing as Goldberg claims when she says that constructions superimpose their syntax and semantics upon those of lexical verbs. Furthermore, note that many other scholars committed to the constructional view readily analyze compositional cases in constructional terms (Croft 2001; Croft & Cruse 2004; Tomasello 2003; inter alia). It seems safe to conclude, therefore, that construction grammar is by no means limited to non-compositional cases alone.

3.2  The need for a more specific semantics 3.2.1  The “cover” semantics Let us next turn to the fourth issue, i.e., that concerning the notion of change of state. As pointed out in 2.4, the notion “change of state” is too general for the



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

location-as-object variant. While the location-as-object variant may be characterized in terms of “change of state” as very broadly conceived, a more specific notion is certainly preferable. But what is it? In order to approach an answer, let us examine the scenes described by the two variants. As has been repeatedly stated in the previous analyses, the locatumas-object variant and the location-as-object variant describe basically the same scene. So the scene expressed by the two variants of spray may be described as in Figure 3.

Figure 3.  spray paint onto the wall/spray the wall with paint.

What is significant about spraying in this scene is that one sends substance in a mist, typically in a back and forth manner. 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. Notice that this spraying scene can receive two alternate interpretations. If we focus on the paint, we get an event of sending a substance in a mist. Hence the locatum-as-object variant of spray as in Figure 4.

spray paint onto the wall: ‘To send a liquid in a mist or fine droplets’

Figure 4.  spray paint onto the wall.

If, on the other hand, we focus on the wall, this is an event of covering the wall with paint.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

spray the wall (with paint): ‘To cover a surface with an even coat of deposited liquid adhering to it’ Figure 5.  spray the wall with paint.

Thus what is essential to the alternation exhibited by spray is that a spraying scene involving paint and a wall can be interpreted either as moving paint on the wall or as covering the wall with paint. It seems reasonable to suppose, then, that spray may appear in the location-as-object frame precisely because of this “cover” semantics, for cover is a representative verb that assumes the location-as-object syntax (cover the table with a cloth). Consequently, the location-as-object variant of spray is to be characterized in terms of the “cover” semantics rather than change of state. 3.2.2  Smear and scatter Let us now turn to other alternating verbs. It goes without saying that other members of the spray-class (drizzle, shower, spatter, splash, splatter, spray, sprinkle, squirt), which involve a liquid being sent in a specified spatial distribution, can be accounted for along the same lines. The smear-class (brush, dab, daub, drape, dust, hang, plaster, settle, slather, smear, smudge, streak, swab), which involves motion while in continuous contact with a surface, can also receive essentially the same explanation. (5) a. He smeared paint on the wall. b. He smeared the wall with paint.

The verb smear typically involves the back and forth movement of strokes over a surface, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6.  The manner of typical smearing.



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

Similarly, with scatter-class verbs (plant, scatter, seed, sew, sow, strew) 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. (6) a. scatter seeds in the field. b. scatter the field with seeds.

3.2.3  Cram, load and pile The cram-class and the load-class differ from the three classes seen so far in that the location-as-object variant is to be characterized in terms of the “fill” semantics, rather than the “cover” semantics. With cram-class verbs (cram, crowd, jam, stuff, wad) 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. With load-class verbs (load, pack, stock) some 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). Unlike the cram-class, load-class verbs do not always literally “fill” the container (Jeffries & Willis 1984). Still, a significant portion of the container is occupied, and the container can be regarded as being thereby acted upon. Finally, with the pile-class verbs (heap, pile, stack) the objects are arranged vertically, rather than horizontally over a surface. (7) a. pile books onto the shelf. b. pile the shelf with books.

Examples like (7) may create the impression that the location-as-object variant of this class is also licensed as a covering activity, for objects thus arranged come to occupy a large portion of the relevant surface. A closer inspection reveals, however, that this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, some location-as-object variants of pile seem to be characterizable as acting upon a surface.

(8) a. … she was soon piling her plate with potato puree, tomato salad and

geranium-red barbecue sauce.

b. a couple of slices of toast piled with cheese. (9) a. a huge plate piled high with eggs and sausages and bacon and tomatoes. b. When I started, my desk was piled high with the unopened envelopes.

But in the following examples a container, rather than a surface, is acted upon. (10)

a. b. c. d.

The shop was piled high with rolls of materials. Barrows were piled high with fruit and vegetables. the bookstalls were piled high with that month’s issue of Vogue magazine. … when they left their arms were piled high with brown paper bags.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Maybe the location-as-object variant of the pile-class is open to both a “cover” interpretation and a “fill” interpretation. 3.2.4  Short summary To sum up, the location-as-object variant is to be handled in a non-uniform way: With spray-, smear-, and scatter-classes, it is characterized in terms of the “cover” semantics; with load- and cram-classes, it is characterized in terms of the “fill” semantics; with the pile-class, it can be characterized in terms of either the “cover” or “fill” semantics. Characterizing the location-as-object variant in terms of “cover”/ “fill” semantics, rather than in terms of change of state, then, will likely allow us to overcome the problem noted in 2.4, namely that the label “change of state” is too general. Given that cover and fill are subtypes of change of state verbs as distinct from break, as depicted in Figure 7, the location-as-object variant will no longer need to be identified with typical change of state verbs like break. change of state verbs break

…

cover

fill

Figure 7.  Types of change of state verbs.

Furthermore, by drawing on lower-level generalizations we can expect to account for a couple of behavioral characteristics of the location-as-object variant. Recall in 2.4 that a secondary location phrase, which is not compatible with typical change of state verbs like break or cut, as in (11) and (12), can nevertheless be added to some location-as-object variants, as in (13). (11) a. *The horse broke Penny in the shin. b. The horse broke Penny’s shin. (12) a. *The glass cut Rachel in the toe. b. The glass cut Rachel’s toe.

(Levin 1993: 72)

(13) a. By-and-by, one group after another came straggling back to the mouth of the cave, panting, hilarious, smeared from head to foot with tallow drippings, daubed with clay, and entirely delighted with the success of the day.... (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/sawyr-XXIX.html) b. The girl herself is smeared from the waist downward with a red dye made from the cam-wood tree. (http://djvued.libs.uga.edu/text/sotbtxt.txt)



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

c. Treated plants were sprayed on leaf surfaces with a solution of chitosan dissolved in DL-lactic acid or .beta.-D-galactopyranuronic acid. (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6407040.html) d. I lay on a towelled “wet bed” where I was treated to a Vichy shower (a fancy term for being sprayed from head to toe with warm water), … (http://www.journeywoman.com/herspastop/bermuda.html)

Now if the location-as-object variant is characterized in terms of the “cover” semantics, as I propose, then the occurrence of a secondary location phrase is to be quite expected. After all, cover admits this phrase. (14) a. He was absolutely colossal – about 5 foot 10 inches tall and 6 foot wide, and carrying a riding crop covered from end to end with thick black tape. b. … and he was covered from about his waist down with coal … (BNC)

Next, some location-as-object variants can be modified by adverbs like lightly, thickly or thinly. (15) a. I smeared the pan lightly with oil and spread seeds to cover a few thick, … (http://soopergrape.stumbleupon.com/tag/cooking/) b. Spread bread slices thickly with basil mayonnaise. (http://www.epicurious.com/cooking/healthy/whats_new/ recipes/239092) c. It looked as if someone had sprayed it thinly with black paint. (http://www.nasw.org/users/philipjo/fleas.htm)

Again, this is not surprising in that all these adverbs specify the degree of thickness of the layer created as a result of covering. As a matter of fact, cover can be similarly modified. (16) It’s made from cut bamboo which is then covered very lightly with mud, with less than one half inch.(http://www.conversations.org/story.php?sid=53)

All these considerations argue for approaching the locative alternation by capturing lower-level generalities.

3.3  A lexical-constructional approach 3.3.1  Levels of schematicity In order to implement the idea that the location-as-object variant is to be characterized in terms of the “cover”/“fill” semantics, I take a strongly usage-based view

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

of constructions. While construction grammarians generally avow their commitment to a usage-based view of language, the degree of commitment differs from scholar to scholar. I align myself with those that emphasize the usage-based aspects of constructions rather strongly (Croft 2001, 2003; Croft & Cruse 2004; Boas 2003; Tomasello 2003; also Langacker 1987, 1991, 1999; Taylor 2002).1 It follows, then, that constructions are abstractions or schemas from occurrences of a given type of form-meaning pairing in context (i.e., usage events). An immediate consequence of this usage-based view is that since schemas are available at varying degrees of abstraction, constructions should be available at varying levels of abstraction. So I follow Croft (2001, 2003) in introducing such lower-level constructions as verb-specific constructions and verb-class-specific constructions. Take put again as an illustration. The verb put always appears in context, like John put the box on the desk. By abstracting over this and other individual occurrences like (17a) and (17b), a verb-specific construction arises in which put appears in the syntactic frame [NP V NP PP]. (17) a. John put the box on the desk. b. Mary put a dish on the table.

Now there are other verbs like throw in (18a) or move in (18b) that have similar meanings and which also occur in the same syntactic frame. (18) a. John threw a ball into center field. b. John moved the piano into the bed room.

By abstracting over these verb-specific constructions, we now have a verbclass-specific construction which pairs the common semantics with the syntactic frame [NP V NP PP]. Now there are still other verb classes that have slightly different meanings and which occur in the same syntactic frame, like (19a) and (19b) (see Goldberg 1995; van der Leek 2000). (19) a. John coaxed Mary into the room. b. John helped Mary into the room.

By abstracting over these verb-class-specific constructions, we now have an abstract caused-motion construction, as in Figure 8. Obviously there is much redundancy here, which formalists may well find objectionable. But in a usage-based theory, there is nothing problematic about this hierarchical organization of constructions: just because a higher-order schema is abstracted does not mean that lower-order entities are wiped out from memory (Langacker 1987). Besides, schemas at different levels of abstraction serve different purposes.



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation  Caused-motion construction Syn: [NP V NP PP] Sem: “………….” Syn: [NP V NP PP]

Syn: [NP V NP PP]

Syn: [NP V NP PP]

Sem: “………….”

Sem: “………….”

Sem: “………….”

=> verb-class-specific

Syn: [NP throw NP PP]

Syn: [NP put NP PP]

construction

Syn: [NP push NP PP] => verb-specific

Sem: “……………”

Sem: “…………”

Sem: “……………”

Syn: [John put the box

Syn: [Mary put a dish

Syn: [Susan put a book

on the desk]

on the table]

on the desk]

construction

=> individual occurrences

Sem: “……………”

Sem: “……………”

Sem: “……………”

Figure 8.  The hierarchical organization of constructions.

Lower-level schemas, expressing regularities of only limited scope, may on balance be more essential to language structure than high-level schemas representing the broadest generalizations. (Langacker 1999: 118)

In the case of the construction hierarchy seen above, a verb-specific construction handles so-called subcategorization properties and selectional restrictions (cf. “Verb Island Hypothesis” in Tomasello (1992)), while a verb-class-specific construction captures syntactic and semantic regularities of a verb class. And this is the level that captures argument structure alternations (cf. Goldberg 2002), as will be shown below.2 Now the two variants of the alternation are handled as below. In the proposed constructional approach to argument structure alternations, the variants are not derivationally related to each other. Rather, for a single verb to alternate between two syntactic frames means simply that that verb has two verb-specific constructions. Thus the two variants of spray in (20) translate into the two verb-specific constructions in Figure 9. (20) a. John sprayed paint onto the wall. b. John sprayed the wall with paint.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach Syn: [NP spray NP PP]

Syn: [NP spray NP (with NP)]

Sem: “……………”

Sem: “……………….……”

(a) the locatum-as-object variant

(b) the location-as-object variant

Figure 9.  Two verb-specific constructions of spray.

3.3.2  Constructions as schemas What needs to be emphasized is that constructions are now defined as schemas in the sense of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 1991, 1999; Taylor 2002, among others). That is, in a usage-based view, constructions are nothing more than schematic form-meaning pairings abstracted over usage events. As a schema both captures the commonalities over its instances and sanctions new instances which conform with its specifications, so does a construction. It follows, therefore, that constructions and individual full expressions are related in the following manner. First, constructions as schemas sanction more concrete linguistic expressions. In a usage-based theory, newly encountered expressions are acceptable, and meaningful, to the extent that they can be associated with linguistic structures that already have unit status. There are two ways of association. On the one hand, the novel expression may count as an instance of a schema. On the other, it may be assimilated, via similarity, to an already established unit. If the novel expression fails both of these routes, then it is judged unacceptable (Langacker 1987, 1991; Taylor 2002: 27, among others). A (schema)

[B] (instance) (a) sanctioning by a schema

[B]

C

(b) sanctioning by association with a unit

Figure 10.  Two ways of sanctioning.

Second, schemas sanction the linguistic expression as a whole, not part of it. When this seeming truism is applied to argument structure constructions, the consequence is that whether a given verb can appear in a particular syntactic frame or not is a matter of whether the whole string embedding the verb in that syntactic frame can instantiate a relevant construction or not. Consequently, all we can ask is whether He sprayed paint onto the wall is sanctioned by a particular



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

construction or not, rather than whether the verb spray is sanctioned by the construction or not. I stress that this is an automatic consequence of a usage-based view: In usage events verbs are normally accompanied by particular syntactic frames (e.g., John sprayed paint onto the wall.); after all, verbs alone (Spray!) rarely constitute usage events. Consequently, the two variants of spray are sanctioned as follows. The locatumas-object variant He sprayed paint onto the wall is acceptable because it is sanctioned, along with She put the box on the desk or He poured water into a glass, by a verb-class-specific construction which pairs the syntactic frame [NP V NP PP] with the semantics “X moves Y into/onto Z.” (Figure 11) (21) a. She put the box on the desk. b. He sprayed paint onto the wall. Syn: [NPX VNPY directional PPZ]

verb-class-specific construction

Sem: “X moves Y into/onto Y” Syn: [NPX put NPY dir-PPZ]

Syn: [NPX spray NPY dir-PPZ]

Sem: “………………..”

Sem: “…………………..”

verb-specific

Syn: [She put the box on the desk]

Syn: [He sprayed paint onto the wall]

Sem: “………………..”

Sem: “…………………..”

construction

Individual occurrences

Figure 11.  How the locatum-as-object variant of spray is sanctioned. Syn:

[NPX V NPY]

verb-class-specific construction

Sem: “X causes Y to have a layer over it” Syn: [NPX cover NPY]

Syn: [NPX spray NPY]

Sem: “…………….”

Sem: “……………...”

verb-specific

Syn: [She covered the floor with a rug]

Syn: [He sprayed the wall with paint]

Sem: “………………………..”

Sem: “………………..….……..”

construction

Individual

Figure 12.  How the location-as-object variant of spray is sanctioned.

occurrences

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

On the other hand, the location-as-object variant He sprayed the wall with paint is acceptable because it is sanctioned, along with She covered the floor with a rug, by a verb-class-specific construction that pairs the syntactic frame [NP V NP] with the semantics “X causes a layer to cover Y.” (Figure 12) (22) a. She covered the floor with a rug. b. He sprayed the wall with paint.

3.4  Shifting the alternation outside of the lexicon 3.4.1  Spray That the full expression He sprayed the wall with paint instantiates the construction means that by simply looking at a verb alone, one cannot necessarily determine whether it may appear in a particular syntactic frame, let alone in more than one frame. Consequently, alternation phenomena are no longer localized in the lexicon in the narrow sense, despite the long tradition in the lexical semantics literature of holding verbs alone to be responsible for alternation phenomena. Strictly speaking, therefore, in talking about the alternation one needs to consider how the full expression is composed from its component parts, rather than the verb meaning alone. With this in mind, let us analyze the alternation in (23). It seems safe to say that the verb meaning of spray makes schematic reference to a liquid and a surface.3 (23) a. John sprayed paint onto the wall. b. John sprayed the wall with paint.

Now in (23a) these two entities are elaborated by paint and the wall, respectively. Accordingly, the semantic structures are combined to yield the scene for spray paint onto the wall, as in Figure 13.4,5,6 This bottom-up aspect of spray paint onto the wall may seem too trivial, but there is also the top-down aspect. The scene expressed by the composed expression needs to be sanctioned by the verb-class-specific construction which pairs the syntactic frame [NP V NP PP] with the semantics “X moves Y into/onto Z,” as seen above. This is rather straightforward, for by focusing upon the paint’s movement inside the scene, we get the interpretation “to send paint onto the wall” as in Figure 14. Let us next turn to the location-as-object variant. The composition goes as before. The verb meaning of spray makes schematic reference to a liquid and a surface, and these two entities can be elaborated by paint and the wall, respectively, as in Figure 15.7 Essentially the same scene is obtained as before. But notice that by focusing upon the wall this time, we get the interpretation “to cover the wall with paint” as in Figure 16.



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation  VP: spray paint onto the wall

V: spray

NP: paint

PP: onto the wall

P: onto

NP: the wall

Figure 13.  The composition of spray paint onto the wall.

spray paint onto the wall: ‘To send a liquid in a mist or fine droplets’ Figure 14.  spray paint onto the wall.

This time spray is semantically similar to cover. Consequently, (23b) can be regarded as instantiating the same verb-class-specific construction that She covered the floor with a rug instantiates. Thus no special mechanisms are needed to account for the locative alternation. The two variants of spray are sanctioned by two verb-class-specific constructions, just as She put the box on the desk and She covered the floor with a rug are sanctioned by these verb-class-specific constructions. It is just that spray is compatible with either of the two verb-class-specific constructions, for the schematic

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach VP: spray the wall (with paint)

V: spray

NP: the wall

PP: with paint

P: with

NP: paint

Figure 15.  The composition of spray the wall (with paint).

spray the wall (with paint): ‘To cover a surface with an even coat of deposited liquid adhering to it’ Figure 16.  spray the wall (with paint).

scene specified by spray can be elaborated into either an event of moving substance onto/into a place (the locatum-as-object variant) or one of covering a surface (the location-as-object variant).8 3.4.2  Spread It turns out that this view of constructions as schemas makes it possible to account for when and why spread alternates. As pointed out in 2.3, the verb spread enters into the locative alternation, but the location-as-object variant is not always available. (24) a. He spread butter on the bread. b. He spread the bread with butter.



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

(25) a. He spread the coat over the bed. b. *He spread the bed with the coat.

My account of the contrast between (24) and (25) goes as follows. What is crucial is that unlike other alternating verbs like spray or load, spread does not have in its inherent meaning the sense of adding a substance to something. Thus spread may occur as a coverage path expression (Matsumoto 1996a, 1996b; Talmy 2000a, 2000b, among others) or express the sense of separation, both of which are quite unrelated to the two frames of the locative alternation. (26) a. The city spreads out for miles to the north. (COBUILD) b. He stepped back and spread his hands wide.

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 1981, 1982; Lakoff 1987). (27) The butter spread out. (Lakoff 1987: 430)

Figure 17.  The image-schema of spread.

Clearly, this image-schematic structure is applicable even to cases like (26a) and (26b), where the theme entity is not a semi-liquid. Let us see how this image-schematic structure contributes to composing a scene for the locatum-as-object variant. Force is applied to butter, and as a result the butter comes to occupy a progressively larger area on a surface in accordance with the above image-schema. The composed scene can be construed as one of putting butter on the bread. Hence, (28b) can be regarded as instantiating the same verb-class-specific construction that (28a) instantiates. (28) a. She put butter on the bread. b. He spread butter on the bread.

The locatum-as-object variant of spread is thus sanctioned. (Figure 18) Let us next turn to (24b). As the butter is spread on the bread, the bread becomes progressively covered. Hence, the scene composed can be construed as one of covering the bread with butter. (Figure 19)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach VP: spread butter on the bread

V: spread

NP: butter

PP: on the bread

Figure 18.  The composition of spread butter on the bread. VP: spread the bread with butter

V: spread

NP: the bread

PP: with butter

Figure 19.  The composition of spread the bread with butter.

Therefore, (29b) can be regarded as instantiating the same verb-class-specific construction that (29a) instantiates. The location-as-object variant of spread is thus sanctioned. (29) a. She covered the bread with butter. b. He spread the bread with butter.

Now let us return to (25b), where the image-schema of spread plays a different role in the scene. Indeed one may well say that spreading a coat over a bed is an activity that ends up covering the bed. Crucially, however, the bed is not covered in a “spreading fashion”. Unlike the buttering process, the locatum entity need not be in direct contact with a surface when it is spread out. So the coat spreading does not extend in tandem with the bed getting covered. (Figure 20)



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation  VP: spread the coat over the bed

V: spread

NP: the coat

PP: over the bed

Figure 20.  The composition of spread the coat over the bed.

Consequently, this scene cannot be construed as a covering activity. Hence (25b) cannot be sanctioned in the same way that (24b) is. This line of reasoning is applicable to the following cases as well. The spreading activity is coextensive with the covering activity in (30), but not in (31)–(33).9,10 (30) a. He spread glue on the paper. b. He spread the paper with glue. (31) a. He spread a blanket on the sleeping child. b. *He spread the sleeping child with a blanket. (32) a. He spread a map on the bed. b. *He spread the bed with a map. (33) a. He spread the contents on the table. b. ?*He spread the table with the contents.

Thus my account can explain the contrast between (24) and (25) without proliferating verb senses. The verb spread remains the same. It’s just that spread the bread with butter can instantiate a verb-class-specific construction with the “cover” semantics, but spread the bed with the coat cannot. And this straightforward account is made possible precisely because the whole string containing the verb, rather than the verb alone, is what counts in my usage-based theory of constructions. The same effect cannot be achieved if one persists in holding verbs alone to be responsible for alternation phenomena, as has been repeatedly claimed.11

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

3.5  The locatum with 3.5.1  Locatum with vs. instrumental with Here a word is in order about the status of the with phrase which appears in the location-as-object variant (henceforth “locatum with”). An attentive reader may have noticed that the proposed cover-class-specific construction, which is responsible for the syntax and semantics of the location-as-object variant, does not specify the locatum with phrase as part of its syntax. Syn:

Sem:

[NPX V NPY]

“X causes Y to have a layer over it”

Figure 21.  The cover-class-specific construction.

This is because there are reasons to believe that the locatum with is not an argu­ment, and therefore does not constitute part of an argument structure construction. Some people might find this treatment of the locatum with problematic, for in the literature there is abundant evidence that the locatum with is distinct from the instrumental with, which is clearly an adjunct (Levin & Rappaport 1988; Randall 1992; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997; Okuboh 2001, among others). First, the locatum with may co-occur with the instrumental with as in (34) and (35).12 (34) a. Mary loaded the wagon with hay with a pitchfork. b. Mary crammed the freezer with food with her hands. c. Mary sprayed the wall with paint with an aerosol. (Okuboh 2001: 108) (35) Bill filled the tank with water with a bucket. (Ibid.)

Second, when they co-occur, the locatum with always precedes the instrumental with. The reverse order is not allowed. (36) a. Sam loaded the wagon with hay with a fork. b. *Sam loaded the wagon with a fork with hay.

Third, manner adverbials like quickly can intervene between the direct object and the instrumental with as in (37b), but not between the direct object and the locatum with as in (37a). (37) a. ??Sam loaded the wagon quickly with hay. b. Sam loaded the wagon quickly with a fork.

Similarly, the locatum with must precede adverbials like yesterday.



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

(38) a. She sprayed the truck with red paint yesterday. b. ?She sprayed the truck yesterday with red paint.

(Randall 1992: 123)

Fourth, the instrumental with can be an answer to a how question, as in (39b) and (40c), but the locatum with cannot, as in (40b). (39) a. How did Mary break the window? b. With the hammer. (40) a. How did Mary load the wagon? b. *With hay. c. With a pitchfork.

(Okuboh 2001: 108)

Fifth, the instrumental with and the locatum with behave differently with respect to do-so, as in (41). (41) a. I cut my foot with a rock and Bob did so with a knife. b. *I filled the glass with water and later Bob did so with wine.  (Kefer 1980: 430)

It is generally held that arguments precede adjuncts (in English, at least). And arguments supposedly fall within do-so. All these facts, therefore, seem to strongly indicate that the locatum with is an argument. 3.5.2  The locatum with as an adjunct All of those facts are actually not conclusive, however. First, while all the facts seen above do illustrate the differences between the locatum with and the instrumental with, notice that the instrumental with is simply one type of adjunct. Merely showing the locatum with to be distinct from one type of adjunct says nothing conclusive about its argument/adjunct status. To appreciate this point, notice that exactly the opposite conclusion could be drawn when we compare the locatum with with a resultative predicate. A locatum with may co-occur with a resultative predicate, as in (42). (42) a. I poured the glass full with water. b. Joe loaded the wagon full with hay.

(Pinker 1989: 80) (Goldberg 1995: 82)

The two phrases should appear in this order. The locatum with cannot precede a resultative predicate as in (43). (43) a. *I poured the glass with water full. b. *Joe loaded the wagon with hay full.

Given that a resultative predicate is generally agreed to be an argument, then, this fact could be taken to indicate that the locatum with is not an argument.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

This line of argument is not conclusive, of course. Just because the locatum with appears syntactically in a more outer position than one type of argument, this does not preclude the possibility that it is still an argument. Similarly, the mere fact that the locatum with behaves differently from one type of adjunct does not rule out the possibility that it is an adjunct after all. In a nutshell, either set of facts is compatible with the locatum with being either an argument or an adjunct. It is a fact that the argument/adjunct distinction is not as firmly established as might appear at first sight. Quite often, syntactic tests as seen above are employed, but the argument/adjunct distinction thus made does not always match a distinction based on semantic considerations (Jackendoff 1990; Goldberg 2002). In the absence of a conclusive definition that is satisfactory to everyone, then, the matter should be settled, in particular cases, by some overall consideration. As a matter of fact, it can be settled by the following consideration. If the locatum with is really an argument, this will justify directly associating the syntactic frame [NP V NP with NP] with the “cover” semantics. This in turn would entail that the location-as-object variant syntax always carries with it the “cover” semantics. This is actually not the case, however. As Pinker (1989: 78) observes, one can say (44) even if there is only a dab of paint on the statue. (44) The vandal sprayed the sculpture with paint.

Thus on the one hand, distinction from the instrumental with alone is not sufficient to identify the locatum with as an argument. On the other, treating the locatum with as an argument will lead to an incorrect prediction.13 A natural conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that while the locatum with is indeed distinct from the instrumental with, they are nevertheless both adjuncts. 3.5.3  Two different attribution relations Given that both the locatum with and the instrumental with are adjuncts, how are they to be differentially characterized? In the Cognitive Linguistics literature (Langacker 1987, 1999; Croft 1991) the instrument is defined in terms of a causal chain or an action chain, to the effect that the instrument is an intermediary in the flow of energy (AG => INSTR => TH), and both Croft (1991, 98) and Goldberg (2002) attempt to characterize the locatum with following this practice. In fact, Goldberg (2002) uses the label INTERMEDIARY to describe the locatum with. The problem with an analysis along this line is that it cannot accommodate the difference between the locatum with and the instrumental with. Identifying the locatum with as the instrumental with as in Croft (1991, 98) and Goldberg (2002), despite the many behavioral differences seen above, is not very appealing.14 Even if one tries to differentiate between the two with phrases, it is not immediately



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

obvious how this can be done. One possibility might be to locate it between the Instrument and the Theme in an action chain (i.e., AG => INSTR => LOCATUM=>TH), but this does not seem to be very revealing. Instead, the difference between the two with phrases comes out clearly when seen from an entirely different angle. Specifically, while both of the phrases convey essentially the same “with” relation, that relation obtains between different entities across the two cases. Notice that in John loaded the truck with a fork, the fork is held by John in the course of an action. While it may come into contact with an entity in the direct object position (i.e., the truck), it does not remain in that place once the action is over. In contrast, in John loaded the truck with hay, the hay comes into contact with the truck, and remains there even after the action is over. In other words, while in (45a) John is asserted to be with the fork (instrumental with), in (45b) it is the truck that comes to be with the hay (locatum with).15 (45) a. John loaded the truck with a fork. ⊃ John was with a fork. b. John loaded the truck with hay. ⊃ The truck was with the hay.

Differentiating between the instrument and the locatum along this line not only allows one to clarify the difference between the two with phrases. Additionally, there are a couple of considerations that argue in favor of this view. For one thing, by claiming that the locatum with ascribes a locatum to a location, we can also handle the with phrase in (46) as an instance of locatum with (for discussion of this type of construction, see Fillmore 1968; Anderson 1971; Salkoff 1983; Dowty 2000).

Figure 22.  The locatum with.

(46) The garden is swarming with bees.  (cf. Fillmore 1968; Anderson 1971; Salkoff 1983; Dowty 2000)

Furthermore, most of the behavioral differences between locatum with and instrumental with can be accounted for along this line. First, recall the contrast between the instrumental with and the locatum with, as in (47) and (48). (47) a. How did Mary break the window? b. With the hammer.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(48) a. How did Mary load the wagon? b. *With hay. c. With a pitchfork.

In these sentences, a how question asks how an agent carried out an action. Therefore, it can be appropriately answered only by adjuncts that ascribe an entity to an agent. Hence the instrumental with can be an answer, as noted above. In contrast, the locatum with does not ascribe an entity to an agent and therefore cannot be an appropriate answer to a how question. Thus the above contrast is due to the difference in regard to the ascription relation. It in no way proves that the locatum with is an argument. Next, the relative order of the locatum with and the instrumental with can be taken to reflect iconically the semantic structure. Semantically, the instrumental with modifies an action, whereas the locatum with pertains to the internal subcomponent of that action. It is natural, therefore, that the locatum with comes before the instrumental with as in (49) in accordance with this inner/outer distinction. (49) a. Sam loaded the wagon with hay with a fork. b. *Sam loaded the wagon with a fork with hay.

The apparent difference between locatum with and instrumental with as to the do-so test does not create a problem, for the validity of this test is rather suspect. Somewhat surprisingly, conflicting observations have been reported in the literature. As seen above, Kefer (1980) reports that the locatum with phrase of fill is not fine with the do-so test. (50) *I filled the glass with water and later Bob did so with wine.

(Kefer 1980: 430)

On the other hand, Levin & Rappaport (1988: 1073) observe that the do-so test works fine with fill but not with load, as in (51). (51) a. Sue filled the pail with distilled water, and Sam did so with tap water. b. *Bill loaded the truck with cartoons and Don did so with trunks.

The different acceptability judgments reflect our world knowledge, rather than the argument/adjunct distinction: it is not possible to fill a glass if that glass is already filled up (50). Similarly, one can’t load a wagon if it is already loaded up (51b) (Goldberg 2002). If these problems are circumscribed, the judgments change. Thus Goldberg (2002) observes that (52b) is improved if we assume that the hay Liza loaded is removed before Henry puts straw onto the wagon. Alternatively, one can enforce a “parallel action” reading by replacing the definite article the of the direct object with an indefinite article or a possessive as in (52).



Chapter 3.  A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation 

(52) a. I filled my glass with water and Bob did so with wine. b. Liza loaded a wagon with hay and Henry did so with straw.

To recapitulate, while traditional tests apparently point to the argument status of the locatum with phrase, it is nevertheless an adjunct, at least in the sense intended here.

3.6  Summary In this chapter I have advanced my lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation. First, it is lower-level constructions like verb-class-specific constructions and verb-specific constructions, rather than higher-level, abstract constructions, that are responsible for the observed syntax and semantics of the alternation. Second, the location-as-object variant is characterized in terms of “cover” semantics, rather than change of state. Third, the compatibility of verbs and constructions is not reduced to matching role labels. Instead, far richer contents of verb meanings need to be recognized.

chapter 4

More on the location-as-object variant 4.0  Introduction Of the several problems noted in Chapter 2, one thing is still left unanswered: Some location-as-object variants do not conform to the template for a change of state, which consists of a transition from non-P (old state) to P (new state). First, the “old state” need not obtain. (1) can be used felicitously even if the plants were still wet from the previous spraying.

(1) Linda sprayed the plants with water.

Second, the “new state” need not be attained. In (2) the putative new state of being covered is not achieved.

(2) Bill {sprayed/smeared/dabbed/splashed} the wall with paint (for ten minutes),

but it still wasn’t covered.

Third, the “new state” need not be the end-point. Even after the wall is completely covered, one can go on putting paint on it indefinitely.

(3) John sprayed this wall with paint for an hour.

Essentially, data like these amount to showing that the location-as-object variant can be atelic. While I have so far shown that many apparent problems can be solved by means of lower-level constructions (verb-class-specific constructions and verbspecific constructions), the atelicity of the location-as-object variant cannot be accommodated by simply saying that it is sanctioned by the cover-class-specific construction. After all, cover in the location-as-object frame is only telic. (4) a. John sprayed the wall with paint {in/for} ten minutes. b. John covered the ground with a tarpaulin {in/*for} ten seconds.

So we must find out why the location-as-object variant can be atelic.

54 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

4.1  The usefulness of lower-level constructions 4.1.1  Cover-type vs. fill-type One important thing to note is that the atelic reading is not always possible for the location-as-object variant of every alternating verb. Jackendoff (1996) observes that load, cram, and pack do not behave the way spray and smear do in (2).

(5) a. ?Bill loaded the truck with dirt for an hour, but there was still room for more. b. ?Bill {crammed/packed} the crack with cement (for five minutes), but it still wasn’t full. (Jackendoff 1996: 346)

This suggests that even the problem of atelicity should be approached in terms of lower-level constructions, fully in accord with my claim that the locationas-object variant receives non-uniform semantics (spray-, smear-, and scatterclasses are associated with the “cover” semantics, and load- and cram-classes with the “fill” semantics). Incidentally, the different behaviors between “cover” types and “fill” types may be taken to be a further confirmation that the two types ought to be distinguished. Against my differentiation between “cover” types and “fill” types, one may well wonder whether it is necessary to distinguish the two types: After all, both cover and fill involve affecting a significantly large portion of something, their difference pertaining to the dimensionality of the location (two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional), so that the “cover” semantics and the “fill” semantics could be generalized into a single notion that is neutral as to the dimensionality. In fact, both Jackendoff (1990) and Pinker (1989) seem to have in mind something along this line. Jackendoff (1990: 160–62), noting the fact that fill and cover apparently behave in an entirely parallel way as in (6), posits the two conceptual structures (7a) and (7b). (6) a. Bill filled the tank (with water). b. Bill covered the ground (with a tarpaulin). (7) a. [CAUSE ([BILL], [INCH[BE ([WATER], [INd [TANK] ])] ])] b. [CAUSE ([BILL], [INCH[BE ([TARPAULIN], [ONd [GROUND] ])] ])]  (Jackendoff 1990)

According to this analysis, the difference between fill and cover boils down to that between INd and ONd (Here the subscript d means a “distributive location”, and INd and ONd indicate “throughout” and “all over”, respectively). Jackendoff (1990) says nothing further about the contrast between IN and ON, but given the feature system developed in Jackendoff (1991) so as to capture certain spatial and aspectual



Chapter 4.  More on the location-as-object variant 55

semantics, the IN/ON contrast should be reduced to the contrast in dimensionality (2D vs. 3D). Additionally, one of the parameters which Pinker (1989: 127; 187) employs in differentiating various verbs concerns dimensionality (2D vs. 3D). Quite probably, Pinker would see little point in distinguishing between cover-class-specific construction and fill-class-specific construction. Yet a simple specification of 2D vs. 3D does not allow us to capture the different behaviors of the two types as exhibited by (1)–(3) on the one hand and (5) on the other. 4.1.2  Alternate sanctioning Now let us return to the main theme. A very important thing to recognize about sanctioning by schemas is that a given linguistic expression need not always be sanctioned by one and the same schema; when it is construed differently, the sanctioning schema switches to a different one (e.g., the count/mass distinction of nominals). It follows then that the location-as-object variant need not always be sanctioned by one and the same construction, either. That there may be more than one sanctioning schema for the location-as-object variant is not so strange, particularly considering that of the string associated with the location-as-object variant, the with PP is actually an adjunct, as argued in 3.5. So any construction pairing the syntactic frame [NP V NP] with an identifiable semantics can sanction a location-as-object variant, as long as the full expression is semantically compatible with this construction. Accordingly, when the location-as-object variant is sanctioned by the coverclass-specific construction, it behaves similarly to cover. But when it is sanctioned by some other construction, naturally it behaves differently. In order to see that this is really the case, let us examine one characteristic commonly associated with the location-as-object variant, i.e., the holistic effect.

4.2  The location-as-object variant and the holistic effect 4.2.1  The holistic effect In the literature the location-as-object variant has been associated with some kind of holistic interpretation. Initially, both Fillmore (1968) and Anderson (1971) observed that the whole location of the location-as-object variant is occupied. Later, this observation was found to be not strictly correct (Jeffries & Willis 1984; Jackendoff 1990). It is nevertheless a fact that there is some such thing.

56 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Let us see how the holistic effect is handled in my account. With spray-, smear-, and scatter-classes, the location-as-object variant is sanctioned by the cover-classspecific construction. That the wall tends to be interpreted as being wholly covered in (8b) is, therefore, an automatic consequence of the “cover” semantics of this construction. (8) a. He sprayed paint onto the wall. b. He sprayed the wall with paint.

A similar point can be made about the cram- and load-classes, where the location-as-object variant is sanctioned by the fill-class-specific construction. The holistic effect reported in the literature is, therefore, attributable to the semantics of this construction. 4.2.2  Other alternations In my lexical-constructional approach to argument structure alternations, the variants are not derivationally related to each other. Rather, for a single verb to alternate between two syntactic frames means simply that the verb has two verb-specific constructions. It goes without saying that this fundamental view of alternation phenomena can be easily extended to other alternations. Let us now consider the alternation of hit, as in (9). (9) a. I hit the bat against the wall. b. I hit the wall with the bat.

Strictly, the with phrase in (9b) is an instrumental with rather than a locatum with. But since both kinds of with phrases are adjuncts as seen above, this in no way precludes a parallel account of the alternation of hit and the locative alternation. It is expected that the against form and the with form instantiate two verbclass-specific constructions, parallel to the locative alternation. In this connection, Dowty (1991) makes an intriguing observation. Dowty (1991: 596), contrasting the classes of verbs that take only the with form and those that take only the against form, observes that verbs in (10) imply a pain-inflicting or punishing action, but those in (11) are used only when the change of location of the ball or projectile is important, rather than any effect of the action upon the location. (10) a. swat the boy with a stick b. *swat the stick at/against the boy Likewise: smack, wallop, clobber, smite, etc. (11) a. *dash the wall with the water b. dash the water against the wall Likewise: throw, slam, bat, lob, loft, bounce, etc.

(Dowty 1991: 596)



Chapter 4.  More on the location-as-object variant 57

Now why hit exhibits the two variants may be easily accounted for: the scene of hitting can be construed either as a pain-inflicting action or as one causing a change of location. Quite probably, (11a) is sanctioned by the same verb-class-specific construction that handles the locatum-as-object variant (i.e., put-class-specific construction). On the other hand, (11b) is sanctioned by a verb-class-specific construction which pairs the syntactic frame [NPX V NPY] with “X inflicts pain upon Y”. Significantly, this swat-class-specific construction does not require that the location be covered. Thus the alternation in (9) is perfectly parallel to the locative alternation seen so far: one and the same verb may appear in more than one syntactic frame, because the full expressions can be sanctioned by relevant verb-class-specific constructions. The only difference between the alternation in (9) and the locative alternation has to do with which verb-class-specific construction sanctions the location-as-object variant (or the with form). 4.2.3  When the holistic effect fails We have just seen that the holistic effect is not observed in (9b) precisely because the sanctioning construction does not involve “cover” semantics or “fill” semantics. This leads us to an interesting prediction: Even when a verb appears to enter into the locative alternation, if the location-as-object variant fails to exhibit a holistic effect, then it is not strictly a case of locative alternation in that the location­as-object variant is actually sanctioned by a construction other than the coverclass-specific construction or the fill-class-specific construction. This prediction is in fact borne out. First, consider (12). (12) a. The doctor injected a new drug into him. b. The doctor injected him with a new drug.

Pinker (1989: 126) includes inject among the spray-class verbs, which are characterized as “imparting force to a mass, causing ballistic motion in a specified spatial distribution along a trajectory.” However, I do not think inject really belongs to the spray-class: the act of injecting is done only to a point-like region, and cannot possibly be characterized in terms of covering. Instead, in the case of inject the force applied does not stop at the surface but penetrates through it, creating a hole. It seems reasonable to suppose, then, that the location-as-object variant of inject in (12b) instantiates a different construction, something like the damage-class-specific construction which pairs [NPX V NPY] with “X negatively affects Y”.

58 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(13) presents still another case of apparent locative alternation unaccompanied by the holistic effect. Pinker (1989) observes that (13) can be felicitously used even if there is only a dab of paint on the sculpture. (13) The vandal sprayed the sculpture with paint.

(Pinker 1989: 78)

Pinker, assuming that the holistic effect is an epiphenomenon of the fact that the verb specifies a change of state, claims that the status of the statue as an object of beauty changes with even a single blemish on it. This amounts to saying that the notion of covering something and that of making something dirty are two alternate realizations of a single notion “change of state”. Yet it is rather suspect that the notion of covering something and that of making something dirty really form a conceptually natural class. From my viewpoint, the ambiguity of (13) can be accounted for as follows. When the whole sculpture was covered by paint, it is sanctioned by the coverclass-specific construction. If, on the other hand, paint was added to only part of the sculpture, then it is sanctioned by a different verb-class-specific construction. Significantly, in the latter case the sculpture undergoes an esthetic change due to the added color.1 And verbs having to do with causing an esthetic change generally appear in the transitive frame (stain, taint, soil, dirty). A natural conclusion to be drawn is, therefore, that (13) under the latter interpretation is sanctioned by the stain-class-specific construction, as shown in Figure 1. Syn: Sem:

[NPX V NPY] “X causes a change of color in Y”

Syn: [NPX stain NPY]

Syn: [NPX spray NPY]

Sem:

Sem:

“……….”

“……….”

Figure 1.  The locatum-as-object variant of spray without a holistic effect.

Despite the identical form, therefore, (13) can actually be sanctioned by two different verb-class-specific constructions. In this sense, it seems more appropriate to say that (13) is ambiguous between two variants than to say that a single variant allows for two alternate interpretations. 4.3  The location-as-object variant and telicity Given that the location-as-object variant may behave differently from cover when it is sanctioned by some construction other than the cover-class-specific construc-



Chapter 4.  More on the location-as-object variant 59

tion, it seems reasonable to apply the same reasoning to the atelic reading and claim as follows: When the location-as-object variant is sanctioned by the coverclass-specific construction, it is telic, parallel to cover, as in (14); when it is sanctioned by some other construction, this is not the case, as in (15). (14) a. John sprayed the wall with paint in ten minutes. b. John covered the ground with a tarpaulin in ten seconds. (15) John sprayed the wall with paint for ten minutes.

The question that naturally arises is, which verb-class-specific construction sanctions (15)? Given that the atelic interpretation in question is available for verbs which involve acting on a surface as in (16a), but not for those involving acting on a container as in (16b) and (16c), the construction we are looking after must be one involving the notion of acting on a surface without a definite end-point. (16) a. Bill {sprayed/smeared/dabbed/splashed} the wall with paint (for ten minutes), but it still wasn’t covered. b. ?Bill loaded the truck with dirt for an hour, but there was still room for more. c. ?Bill {crammed/packed} the crack with cement (for five minutes), but it still wasn’t full.

It seems to me that the verb wipe has exactly this characteristic: It involves exerting force over a surface without any definite end-point, and is naturally atelic. (17) John wiped the table for five minutes.

It is straightforward to posit a wipe-class-specific construction which pairs the syntactic frame [NP V NP] with a relevant semantics, for verbs of surface contact like wipe are known to assume the simple transitive syntax. Levin (1993) divides verbs of surface contact into two subclasses: the Manner subclass in (18a) and the Instrument subclass in (18b). (18) a. Manner subclass bail, buff, dab, distill, dust, erase, expunge, flush, leach, lick, pluck, polish, prune, purge, rinse, rub, scour, scrape, scratch, scrub, shave, skim, smooth, soak, squeeze, strain, strip, suck, suction, swab, sweep, trim, wash, wear, (Levin 1993: 125) weed, whisk, winnow, wipe, wring b. Instrument subclass brush, comb, file, filter, hoover, hose, iron, mop, plow, rake, sandpaper, shear, shovel, siphon, sponge, towel, vacuum (Levin 1993: 127)

The fact that all these verbs can appear transitively is now accounted for by saying that all these verbs appearing in the simple transitive frame may instantiate the construction as described in Figure 2.

60 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach Syn: Sem:

[NPX V NPY] “X does a ‘continuous contact’ motion over Y”

Figure 2.  The wipe-class-specific construction.

Now since (19a) in an atelic reading means to apply paint, probably in a back and forth movement, over a surface indefinitely, it can instantiate the wipe-classspecific construction in the same way that (19b) instantiates this construction. (19) a. Bill sprayed the wall (with paint). b. Bill wiped the counter (with a towel). Syn:

[NPX V NPY]

Sem: “X does a ‘continuous contact’ motion over Y” Syn: [NPX wipe NPY]

Syn: [NPX spray NPY]

Sem:

Sem:

“………. ”

“……….”

Figure 3.  The location-as-object variant of spray with an atelic reading.

To sum up, the fact that the location-as-object variant of spray can be either telic or atelic can be accounted for in terms of alternate sanctioning. When the location-as-object variant of spray is sanctioned by the cover-class-specific construction, it has an end-point and therefore denotes a telic event, as in (20). If, on the other hand, the location-as-object variant of spray is sanctioned by the wipeclass-specific construction, it lacks an end point. The sentence therefore describes an atelic event, as in (21). (20) a. John sprayed the wall with paint in ten minutes. b. John covered the ground with a tarpaulin in ten seconds. (21) a. John sprayed the wall with paint for ten minutes. b. John wiped the table for five minutes.

4.4  Covering, wiping and smearing/spraying 4.4.1  The affinity between wiping and smearing/spraying That the location-as-object variant of spray can be alternately sanctioned between cover-class-specific construction and wipe-class-specific construction may come



Chapter 4.  More on the location-as-object variant 61

as a bit of surprise, in that the meaning of the wipe-class seems to be far “removed from the notion of putting an object into or onto a surface or container.” (Pinker, 1989: 125–26) Indeed, when one compares wipe with, say, load as in (22), the distance between verbs of surface contact and locative alternation verbs seems to be rather wide. (22) a. He loaded hay onto the truck. b. He loaded the truck with hay.

Also, wipe can appear as in (23), as (spatial) resultatives, since the force exerted horizontally over a surface is likely to effect a change of location of an object that has been there. (23) a. Kay wiped the polish onto the table. b. Kay wiped the fingerprints from the counter.  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991)

Facts like (23) certainly seem to argue in favor of the distinctness between the two verb classes. However, when one compares the wipe-class with a subtype of locative alternation verbs, the distance turns out to be much smaller than has been believed so far. Specifically, the wipe-class is similar to the smear-class. Both of these classes involve exerting force over a surface by moving something backward and forward on that surface, with that something being in contact with the surface in the course of an action. Crucially, the entity caused to move over a surface, which is typically a liquid or semi-liquid, is intended to stick to the surface in the case of smear, but this is not the case with wipe.2 Because the entity that moves over the surface remains there even after the action of smear is over, the moved entity ends up covering the surface. But this is not the case with wipe. Because of this minimal difference, the with phrase which expresses the moved entity is a locatum with phrase in the case of smear, but an instrumental with phrase in the case of wipe.3 (24) a. Kay smeared the wall with paint. (locatum with) b. Kay wiped the counter with a towel. (instrument with)

locatum location

location (a) wiping action Figure 4.  wiping vs. smearing.

(b) smearing action

62 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Essentially the same is true of the spray-class. So what differentiates smearand spray-classes from the wipe-class is that the substance (locatum) is intended to stick to the surface. Here again, then, we can reveal a hitherto little recognized fact by paying attention to lower-level constructions. 4.4.2  Rub and brush Interestingly enough, recognizing the affinity between wiping and smearing/ spraying allows us to account for a puzzle which, as far as I know, has not been addressed in the literature. As seen above, Levin (1993: 125) includes the verb rub among the wipe-class verbs. But the same verb is also included among the locative alternation verbs (Levin 1993: 53). And in fact, rub does allow for the location-asobject variant with a locatum with phrase as in (25), and it enters into the locative alternation as in (26). (25) a. Trim any excess fat from the lamb, leaving the skin untouched, and rub the joint with salt and pepper. b. The skins can be rubbed with a little margarine prior to cooking. (BNC) (26) a. Every day he rubbed some ointment on his leg. b. Then Aunt Margaret, moaning, would rub him with ointment in spite of his protests, or stick him with Band-Aid, if the skin was broken. (BNC)

Given that the basic idea of Levin’s verb classes is that “whole classes of verbs tend to be associated with the same range of multiple meanings” (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 29), the fact that verbs like spray or load appear in two syntactic frames, or the fact that verbs like wipe systematically appear also as verbs of removal (wipe the crumbs off the table), certainly fall within the province of verb classes. But what about the fact that one and the same verb rub belongs to two distinct verb classes? Since the majority of the wipe-class verbs do not enter into the locative alternation at all, the dual classification cannot be a matter of the wipe-class. But does this mean that the dual classification of rub should be put aside as an arbitrary fact in English, although the dual classification seems to be a significant fact in exploring the syntax-semantics correlations? Levin is silent on this matter. This apparent puzzle can be resolved by taking a close look at the verb meaning. The verb rub means to move something backwards and forwards over a surface, while pressing firmly. When that something is a part of one’s body or some manipulable object, rub behaves as a wipe-class verb. Interestingly enough, what is caused to move over a surface in an act of rubbing can be a liquid or semi-liquid as well. In that case, since a “with” relation



Chapter 4.  More on the location-as-object variant 63

obtains between this entity and a location, it serves as a locatum. Accordingly, rub behaves as a locative alternation verb, as in (27). (27) a. She rubbed ointment on her hands. b. She rubbed her hands with ointment.

(27a) is sanctioned by the put-class-specific construction, as in Figure 5. On the other hand, (27b) is sanctioned by the cover-class-specific construction, as in Figure 6. Syn: [NPX V NPY dir-PPZ] Sem: “X causes Y to go Z” Syn: [NPX put NPY dir-PPZ]

Syn: [NPX rub NPY dir-PPZ]

Sem:

Sem:

“………. ”

“……….”

Figure 5.  The locatum-as-object variant of rub.

Syn:

[NPX V NPY]

Sem: “X causes Y to have a layer over it” Syn: [NPX cover NPY]

Syn: [NPX rub NPY]

Sem:

Sem:

“……….”

“……….”

Figure 6.  The location-as-object variant of rub.

Thus rub can receive a dual classification precisely because it is neutral as to whether the moved entity can stick to the surface or not. Similarly with brush. Just like rub, Levin (1993) simply lists brush both in the class of wipe-class verbs and that of locative alternation verbs, without saying anything about why this verb admits a dual classification. Nemoto (2001, 2005), however, observes that the brush in (28) and the brush in (29) are semantically distinct.

64 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(28) a. John brushed the crumbs onto the floor. b. John brushed the crumbs off the table. (29) a. John brushed melted butter over the loaves. b. John brushed the loaves with melted butter.

(Nemoto 2001)

Nemoto, calling the brush in (28) and that in (29) “sweeping brush” and “smearing brush”, respectively, observes that sweeping brush means to brush with the intention of moving some foreign substance away from the surface, whereas smearing brush means to distribute some liquid over a surface by brushing. These two versions of brush can be explained parallel to rub in my account. While the action is fundamentally the same across smearing brush and sweeping brush, the entity undergoing motion is a semi-liquid and hence remains over the surface with the former, but not with the latter. This difference leads to their behavioral differences observed above. 4.5  Summary The fact that the location-as-object variant of spray can be atelic can again be accounted for by means of lower-level constructions. Just as the holistic effect is observable only when the location-as-object variant is sanctioned by the cover-class-specific construction, so the telic reading is available only when the location-as-object variant instantiates the cover-class-specific construction. The atelic reading arises when the spraying activity is done continuously without a definite end-point, i.e., when the location-as-object variant is sanctioned by the wipe-class-specific construction. Also, the affinity between wiping and smearing/spraying, which has so far escaped linguists’ attention, allows us to account for the dual classification of rub and brush as both verbs of surface contact and as locative alternation verbs. Thus the findings in this chapter once again argue for my analysis, where verb-class-specific constructions are available for capturing lower-level generalities. On the other hand, if one simply characterizes the location-as-object variant in terms of a change of state and leaves it at that (like Pinker and Goldberg), then the locative alternation verbs should be classed together with typical change of state verbs like break but not with verbs of surface contact like wipe. Such an analysis fails to capture the fact that only certain location-as-object variants can be atelic, or the fact that some verbs are ambivalent between smear-class and wipe-class.

chapter 5

Another look at putative non-alternating cases 5.0  Introduction In the preceding chapters we have been concerned mainly with verbs like spray or load, whose status as alternating verbs is uncontroversial. (1) a. Jack sprayed paint onto the wall. b. Jack sprayed the wall with paint.

But clearly an adequate theory should be able to handle non-alternating verbs as well. Also, a related issue is whether a clear line can be always drawn between alternating and non-alternating verbs. These are the topics of this chapter.1 5.1  So-called non-alternating verbs 5.1.1  Pinker (1989) and Levin (1993) In addition to the list of verbs that enter into the locative alternation (already seen in Chapter 2), Pinker (1989) also gives the following list of non-alternating verb classes. Pinker observes three classes of verbs that appear only in the locatumas-object variant frame, as in (2)–(4) (=exclusively locatum-oriented), and five classes which allow for only the location-as-object variant, as in (5)–(9) (=exclusively location-oriented). (2)

pour-class: A mass is enabled to move via the force of gravity: a. She dribbled paint onto the floor. b.  *She dribbled the floor with paint. dribble, drip, drizzle, dump, ladle, pour, shake, slop, slosh, spill

(3)

coil-class: Flexible object extended in one dimension is put around another object: a. He coiled the chain around the pole. b.  *He coiled the pole with the chain.

coil, spin, twirl, twist, whirl, wind

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(4)

emit-class: Mass is expelled from inside an entity: a. He spat tobacco juice onto the table. b. *He spat the table with tobacco juice. emit, excrete, expectorate, expel, exude, secrete, spew, vomit

(5)

cover-class: A layer completely covers a surface: a. *He covered a rug over the floor. b. He covered the floor with a rug. deluge, douse, flood, inundate, bandage, blanket, coat, cover, encrust, face, inlay, pad, pave, plate, shroud, smother, tile, line, edge

(6)

stud-class: A set of objects is distributed over a surface: a. *They studded metal stars onto the coat. b. They studded the coat with metal stars. bombard, blot, dapple, riddle, speckle, splotch, spot, stud

(7) saturate-class: A mass is caused to be coextensive with a solid medium: a. *She soaked water into the sponge. b. She soaked the sponge with water. interlace, interlard, interleave, intersperse, interweave, lard, ripple, vein, drench, impregnate, infuse, saturate, soak, suffuse (8) adorn-class: Addition of an object or mass to a location causes an esthetic or qualitative, often evaluative, change in the location: a. *They adorned ribbons onto the gift. b. They adorned the gift with ribbons. adorn, burden, clutter, deck, dirty, embellish, emblazon, endow, enrich, festoon, garnish, imbue, infect, litter, ornament, pollute, replenish, season, soil, stain, taint, trim

(9) bind-class: An object or mass impedes the free movement of, from, or through the object in which it is put: a. *She bound rope onto/around him. b. She bound him with rope. block, choke, clog, dam, plug, stop up, bind, chain, entangle, lash, lasso, rope  (adapted from Pinker 1989: 126–127)

A comparable list of alternating and non-alternating verbs is also found in Levin (1993). Alternating verbs: (10) spray/load verbs: brush, cram, crowd, cultivate, dab, daub, drape, drizzle, dust, hang, heap, inject, jam, load, mound, pack, pile, plant, plaster, ?prick, pump, rub, scatter, seed, settle, sew, shower, slather, smear, smudge, sow, spatter, splash, spray, spread, sprinkle, spritz, squirt, stack, stick, stock, strew, string, stuff, swab, ?vest, ?wash, wrap



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

(11) a. Jack sprayed paint on the wall. b. Jack sprayed the wall with paint.

Non-alternating with only: (12) fill-verbs: adorn, anoint, bandage, bathe, bestrew, bind, blanket, block, blot, bombard, carpet, choke, cloak, clog, clutter, coat, contaminate, cover, dam, dapple, deck, decorate, deluge, dirty, douse, dot, drench, edge, embellish, emblazon, encircle, encrust, endow, enrich, entangle, face, festoon, fill, fleck, flood, frame, garland, garnish, imbue, impregnate, infect, inlay, interlace, interlard, interleave, intersperse, interweave, inundate, lard, lash, line, litter, mask, mottle, ornament, pad, pave, plate, plug, pollute, replenish, repopulate, riddle, ring, ripple, robe, saturate, season, shroud, smother, soak, soil, speckle, splotch, spot, staff, stain, stipple, stop up, stud, suffuse, surround, swaddle, swathe, taint, tile, trim, veil, vein, wreathe (13) a. *June covered the blanket over the baby. b. June covered the baby with a blanket.

Non-alternating locative preposition only: (14) a. put verbs: arrange, immerse, install, lodge, mount, place, position, put, set, situate sling, stash, stow b. verbs of putting in a spatial configuration (except hang): dangle, lay, lean, perch, rest, sit, stand, suspend c. funnel verbs: bang, channel, dip, dump, funnel, hammer, ladle, pound, push, rake, ram, scoop, scrape, shake, shovel, siphon, spoon, squeeze, squish, quash, sweep, tuck, wad, wedge, wipe, wring d. verbs of putting with a specified direction: drop, hoist, lift, lower, raise e. pour verbs: dribble, drip, pour, slop, slosh, spew, spill, spurt f.

coil verbs: coil, curl, loop, roll, spin, twirl, twist, whirl, wind

(15) a. Tamara poured water into the bowl. b. *Tamara poured the bowl with water.

(Levin 1993: 50–51)

Clearly, Pinker’s list and Levin’s list largely overlap, with occasional minor differences. As can be easily seen, Pinker characterizes these non-alternating cases mostly in configurational (and in fact, geometrical) terms. These configurational characterizations are then used to tell which class is locatum-oriented and which class location-oriented: If a particular manner of motion is specified, then this counts as evidence that a change of location is lexically encoded; if, on the other hand, a particular state is specified, then this is taken as evidence that a change of state is lexically encoded.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

The into/onto classes all specify the kind of force or direction of motion according to which the theme moves or is caused to move … The verbs in the with class all specify a change of state resulting from the addition of material, usually pertaining to the entire object … (Pinker 1989: 127–28)

Putting aside the different theoretical stances between Pinker’s and mine for the moment, then, Pinker’s account can be taken to mean that while locative alternation verbs encode both change of location and change of state, non­alternating verbs lack one of these components of meaning. This is in fact what Pinker claims. This account helps to explain why verbs of pure effect, such as fill, which do not specify any specific kind of motion of a theme, cannot take the into/onto form.  (Pinker 1989: 80)

This line of reasoning seems straightforward, and seems to neatly capture the distinction between alternating and non-alternating verbs. 5.1.2  Attested data of alternations Pinker’s classification is not without problems, however. Boas (2006) points out that by using the BNC and the Google search engines, one can find some verbs in the location-as-object frame even though they are included in the exclusively locatum-oriented class by Pinker. This is indeed the case. I myself have found the following attested data, in which drizzle, dribble, slosh, and wind appear in the location-as-object frame. (16) To serve: decorate top with raspberries brushed with redcurrant jelly and drizzled with chocolate. (BNC) (17) I dribbled the bread with olive oil and New Maldon sea salt, then left in a hot oven for about 5 minutes. (http://becksposhnosh.blogspot.com/2005/03/teaching-tim-tips-on-cookingvinnys.html) (18) The menu at Manze’s, in London’s Tower Bridge Road, by Bermondsey Antiques Market, may not be extensive but at £1.20 for one pie, one mash – sloshed with parsley sauce – there is little reason for customers to argue. (BNC) (19) We tightened up the nuts and screws all over it, and wound the broken pole with wire. (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16586)

Note that all these verbs are supposed to occur in the locatum-as-object frame alone according to the above classification.



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

This is only half of the story. One can also find some verbs in the locatumas-object frame even though they are included in the exclusively location-oriented class. Thus the following are attested data of litter, clutter, and bind in the locatumas-object frame. (20) He left biscuits cake, pies, fruit and bowls of custard littered around the shelves, but it remained untouched. (BNC) (21) He jumped down from the bed, hitting his knee against the unseen objects cluttered around the bed. (http://thomascherian.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/06/the-call.htm) (22) Bind the paper twist around the foam ring and glue the ends in place. (BNC)

Thus “exceptions” to Pinker’s classification can be found in both directions: Some verbs that are claimed to be exclusively locatum-oriented may also appear in the location-as-object frame; some verbs that are supposedly exclusively location­oriented may occur in the locatum-as-object frame as well. How are we to make sense of the above data in (16)–(22)? Table 1.  The BNC counts of the two variants of alternating verbs

Locatum-as-object

Location-as-object

load spray smear spread

82 (into) 41 (onto) 32 (on) 1 (on to) 6 [+1] (onto) 1 [+1] (on to) 14 [+6] (on) 9 (into) 25 [+3]  (over) 33 [+3] (on) 3 (onto) 204 (on) 91 (over)

406

scatter cram pile

167 [+8] 60 30 94 60 [+1] 6 [+3]

(over) (around) (about) (into) (on) (onto)

(with)

82 [+29] (with)

73

(with)

128 [+7] (with)

65

(with)

134 121

(with) (with)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

One possibility is to suppose that Pinker was simply mistaken in his classification, and that the problem is solved once such verbs as dribble or drizzle are imported into the class of alternating verbs. Such an either-or attitude, however, will not do justice to the subtlety of actual linguistic phenomena. As already seen, with alternating verbs like load or spray, both variants are fairly stable in the BNC data: Both variants are found rather abundantly, and even when one variant is more frequent than the other, the ratio is 4 to 1 at the most. (Table 1) When we turn to the “sporadically” alternating verbs seen above, however, things are rather different: With some verbs the numbers of both tokens are extremely small (dribble, drizzle, and slosh), and when one variant exhibits a sizable number of tokens, the other variant is extremely limited (litter and clutter). Table 2.  The BNC counts of the two variants of sporadically alternating verbs dribble drizzle slosh wind litter clutter bind

Locatum-as-object

Location-as-object

1 (over) 3 (over) 2 (over) 52 (around) 3 (around) 3 (about) 0 1 [+1] (around)

0 (with) 1 [+9] (with) 1 (with) 11 (with) 173 (with) 41 (with) 68 [+1] (with)

Obviously, lumping all these verbs together with alternating verbs like spray or load will be an oversimplification. 5.1.3  The different views of the alternation At this point, let me once again clarify the differences between Pinker’s theory and mine. Pinker characterizes the locatum-as-object variant and the locationas-object variant in terms of change of location and change of state, respectively. And whether a verb alternates or not boils down to the issue of lexical encoding: Alternating verbs encode both change of location and change of state, whereas non-alternating verbs encode only one of them. By contrast, my account holds that while the locatum-as-object variant may be characterizable in terms of change of location, the location-as-object variant should be characterized in terms of the ‘‘cover’’/‘‘fill’ semantics. Significantly, the differential characterization of the two variants is meaningful at the level of “full” expressions (e.g., He sprayed paint onto the wall), rather than of lexical verbs (e.g., spray). Accordingly, while the possibility of alternation may be largely ­determined by the lexical encoding of the verb, sometimes the verb



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

meaning alone is not sufficient to predict whether a full expression is actually acceptable or not. With these differences in mind, let us go on to examine the “sporadically” alternating verbs noted above. 5.2  Locatum-oriented classes 5.2.1  Dribble Pinker includes dribble, drizzle, and slosh in the pour-class, which is characterized as specifying the manner of motion of substance. (23) pour-class: A mass is enabled to move via the force of gravity: dribble, drip, drizzle, dump, ladle, pour, shake, slop, slosh, spill

According to Pinker, these verbs do not alternate precisely because the lexically specified manners do not allow one to predict what the effect on the location will be. As just seen, though, all three of these verbs are found in the location-as-object frame as well. (24) a. To serve: decorate top with raspberries brushed with redcurrant jelly and drizzled with chocolate. (BNC) b. I dribbled the bread with olive oil and New Maldon sea salt, then left in a hot oven for about 5 minutes. (http://becksposhnosh.blogspot.com/2005/03/teaching-tim-tips-oncooking-vinnys.html) c. The menu at Manze’s, in London’s Tower Bridge Road, by Bermondsey Antiques Market, may not be extensive but at £1.20 for one pie, one mash – sloshed with parsley sauce – there is little reason for customers to argue. (BNC)

From my viewpoint, there is nothing surprising about all these verbs assuming the location-as-object syntax. Note that in (24) the substance (i.e., liquid) moves over the surface with the manner specified for each verb, thereby covering the surface. Thus in (24b) the olive oil moves over the surface of the bread by continuously dribbling, thereby covering the surface of the bread.

Figure 1.  Dribble the bread with olive oil.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

This means that since (24b) denotes an event that can be construed as a type of covering, it can be sanctioned by the cover-class-specific construction, like other uncontroversial location-as-object variants seen in Chapter 3. Thus data like (24) confirm my thesis that what is essential to the locationas-object variant is the ‘‘cover’’/‘‘fill’’ semantics, rather than change of state, and that the full expression, rather than the verb alone, is required to be compatible with the ‘‘cover’’/‘‘fill’’ semantics. As the lexically specified manners of dribbling or drizzling do not strictly require the location to be covered, the sense of covering is not lexically encoded in these verbs. If one holds verbs alone to be responsible for the possibility of alternation, as does Pinker, then verbs like dribble or drizzle are predicted never to alternate. But the location-as-object variant becomes possible as long as the event denoted by the sentence as a whole is construable as covering. 5.2.2  Wind In Pinker’s classification, the verb wind is included in the coil-class, which is putatively a non-alternating class. (25) coil-class: Flexible object extended in one dimension is put around another object: coil, spin, twirl, twist, whirl, wind

However, the location-as-object variant of wind is cited in a dictionary on the web. (26) To wrap or encircle (an object) in a series of coils; entwine: wound her injured leg with a bandage; wound the waist of the gown with lace and ribbons. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/w/w0167400.html;)

Does this mean that we should simply reclassify wind as an alternating verb? Actually, things are a bit complicated, in that this verb does not always alternate. My informants find the location-as-object variant in (27b) not so good. Yet they find the variant in (28b) significantly better. (27) a. He wound the wire around the pin. b. *?He wound the pin with the wire. (28) a. He wound a bandage around his arm. b. He wound his arm with a bandage.

This is due to the different configurations which the locatum entity comes to display. In (27b) the pin cannot possibly be said to be covered, with the wire being a linear object. By contrast, in (28b) his arm is covered with a bandage, which is extended in two dimensions. Again, then, what matters is whether the sentence as a whole can instantiate the cover-class-specific construction or not, rather than the lexically specified manner of the verb alone.



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

5.3  Location-oriented classes 5.3.1  Litter and clutter The verbs litter and clutter are members of the adorn-class, which is characterized by the fact that “addition of an object or mass to a location causes an esthetic or qualitative, often evaluative, change in the location.” (Pinker 1989) Unlike adorn, however, both of these verbs are found in the locatum-as-object frame. (29) a. He left biscuits, cake, pies, fruit and bowls of custard littered around the shelves, but it remained untouched. (BNC) b. He jumped down from the bed, hitting his knee against the unseen objects cluttered around the bed. (http://thomascherian.sulekha.com/blog/ post/2007/06/the-call.htm)

Note that the availability of the location-as-object variant of litter and clutter should be given a different explanation than the cases of dribble or wind seen so far. As can be easily seen, almost all of the instances of verbs like dribble in the location-as-object frame are found in the recipe context, where a liquid’s motion as applied to a surface can be plausibly construed as a type of covering. So the location-as-object variants of these verbs can be dealt with in basically the same way as those of typical alternating verbs like spray. In the BNC, the numbers of attested location-as-object variants of dribble, drizzle, and slosh are very small. But so are the numbers of attested locatumas-object variants. In fact, all these data, whether locatum-as-object variant or location-as-object variant, have to do with the recipe context, which in turn indicates that the paucity of the location-as-object variant of these verbs is simply due to the fact that the BNC happens to not contain many instances of these verbs as used in the recipe context. Table 3.  The BNC counts of the two variants of dribble, drizzle, and slosh dribble drizzle slosh

Locatum-as-object

Location-as-object

1 (over) 3 (over) 2 (over)

0 (with) 1 [+9] (with) 1 (with)

Once this point is taken into consideration, we can see that maybe the locationas-object variants of these verbs are authentic. The relatively overlooked status of the location-as-object variant of verbs like dribble is probably due to the fact that an appropriate interpretation involving a covering scene has tended to escape linguists’ attention. A similar point can be made for the location-as-object variant of wind as well.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

By contrast, many more instances of litter and clutter are found in the BNC, so perhaps we can safely count on the figures obtained as a clue to the status of the two variants. Now the BNC count shows that the location-as-object variant is far more common than the locatum-as-object variant with these two verbs. Table 4.  The BNC counts of the two variants of litter and clutter litter clutter

Locatum-as-object

Location-as-object

3 (around) 3 (about) 0

173 (with) 41 (with)

This asymmetry may be taken to indicate that the locatum-as-object variants of litter and clutter are somehow “derivative.” A possibility that emerges, then, is that the locatum-as-object variants of litter and clutter are based on some kind of analogy with a more strongly established linguistic expression. Conceivably, it is modeled on the locatum-as-object variant of scatter, which commonly takes an around-PP. (30) Through the holes in the side of the Hongkong Banking Group building in Bishopsgate, papers fluttered on desks, books were scattered around the rooms. (BNC)

One more thing worth noting at this point is that all six occurrences of litter– around/about in the BNC are passives, suggesting that the passive be littered around/ about is related to be scattered around/about. Consequently, the analogical extension in question is described as in Figure 2. First, a higher-order schema is extracted from a verb-specific construction [NP be scattered around/about NP]. The higher-order schema then sanctions [NP be littered around/about NP].2

Syn: [NP1 be V-en around/about NP2] Sem: “……………………...…….” Syn: [NP1 be scattered around/about NP2]

Syn: [NP1 be littered around/about NP2]

Sem: “……………………...…….”

Sem: “……………………...…….”

Figure 2.  Analogical extension from scattered around/about to littered around/about.



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

5.3.2  Bind Both Pinker (1989) and Levin (1993) classify bind as a non-alternating verb. But one instance of bind in the locatum-as-object frame is found in the BNC, and a number of similar attested data can be found by using the Google search engine. (31) Bind the paper twist around the foam ring and glue the ends in place. (BNC) (32) a. As he bound the rope around her arms and legs, Jenny strained against his strength. (http://www.ccel.us/witness.ch18.html) b. Then he stalked back to the sturgeon’s haunt, and bound the rope around a treestem. (http://www.auelfans.ca/discus/messages/2291/3615.html)

How are we to interpret these data? Again, the BNC count suggests that the locatum-as-object variant of bind is to be regarded as rather marginal. Table 5.  The BNC counts of the two variants of bind bind

Locatum-as-object

Location-as-object

1 [+1] (around)

68 [+1] (with)

It thus seems appropriate to suppose that bind is sanctioned by being related to some established unit, like that of litter as just seen. The next question that arises, then, is what that established unit is. It seems that tie fits the bill. (33) a. He tied string around the package. b. He tied the package with string.

Here a brief account of why tie may alternate seems in order, before discussing how bind is related to tie. What is essential to the act of tying is to fasten the ends of a piece of string together in a knot or bow: ‘‘To put a piece of string or cloth around an object and fasten the ends together in a knot or bow’’ (COBUILD). That the forming of a knot is essential to tie is confirmed by the fact that this aspect of meaning recurs in other versions of tie as well. Thus tie may appear in a simple transitive frame, with the ends (34a) or a knot (34b) as its direct object. (34) a. He tied the ends of the plastic bag together. b. He took a short length of rope and swiftly tied a slip knot.

(COBUILD)

Significantly, both of these variants receive fundamentally the same characterization as those in (33): The variant in (34a) means “to fasten two things together with a knot,” and that in (34b) “to fasten the ends of something together in a knot or bow”.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Notice that this lexical specification (i.e., the forming of a knot) is an indication of how a locatum entity, rather than a location entity, comes to be arranged. Given the lexical specification of how a locatum entity is moved, then, it is natural that tie is locatum-oriented and appears in the locatum-as-object frame as in (33a). Let us turn next to the location-as-object variant. Note that tying is quite often done in order to keep an object closed or to keep all its parts together. Thus in (33) the tying is done so that the package will not get messed up during transportation. Accordingly, the string is construed as acting upon the whole surface of that object as in Figure 3. In other words, the package can be said to be covered in (33b). Since the described scene may well be regarded as a type of covering, tie acceptably appears in the location-as-object frame as in (33b).

Figure 3.  The tying scene.

Thus tie is like wind, in that the lexical meaning specifies how a locatum entity comes to be arranged (hence a locatum-as-object variant), and that it may be also used to describe a scene which is construable as a type of covering (hence a ­location-as-object variant). Let us now return to the issue of how bind is related to tie. Evidently, what makes bind exclusively location-oriented is the lexical specification “to impede the free movement of an object,” as Pinker observes. This component of meaning unambiguously specifies how a location entity, rather than a locatum entity, is affected, so that bind is exclusively location-oriented. At the same time, though, this means that if bind is used in such a loose way as to cancel this component of meaning, bind is virtually synonymous with tie in relevant respects. Accordingly, nothing prevents bind from appearing in the locatum-as-object frame. This seems to be what is happening with the above attested data in (31) and (32). Support for this view comes from the co-occurrence with adverbs. In tying something, it does not matter whether it is done tightly or loosely. This is evidenced by the actually attested data in the BNC, where both tie – tightly and tie – loosely are found. (35) a. … a blue ribbon tied tightly round the upper arm to impede the circulation and distend the veins was a sign that its wearer was about to be “cupped” or bled …



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

b. When he took a green ribbon from her and tied it loosely round his waist, Joseph was even more disturbed. (both from BNC)

By contrast, one can bind something only tightly, strictly speaking. If a rope is put around another object loosely, then the object may move freely, and this event should not count as one of binding. In fact, by using the BNC I have found instances of bind – tightly, but no instances of bind – loosely. (36) Then bind him tightly, so there’s no chance of him harming himself. (BNC)

When we turn to the Google search engine, however, not only tie but also bind may be found to occur with loosely. (37) a. Tie string loosely around 10 young flowers that you keep uncovered. (http://www.clima.uwa.edu.au/schools/beanfiles/episodes/episode15/ pollination) b. If you have never administered “first aid” to a canoe and “padded it up” for shipment, let me tell you that the scout way of doing it is to bind burlap loosely around it and to stuff this with grass or hay so that the iron hook which is … (http://snowy.arsc.alaska.edu/gutenberg/1/9/5/2/19522/ 19522-8.txt)

This can be taken to indicate that the locatum-as-object variant of bind is found far more often in the Google than in the BNC because a somewhat loose usage of bind is more common in the former. Summarizing the discussion so far, the location-as-object variants of dribble, drizzle, and slosh seem to be authentic. They have simply been overlooked in the literature so far. A very similar thing can be said of the location-as-object variant of wind. The location-as-object variants of all these verbs can be accommodated in essentially the same way as those of alternating verbs like spray: the full expression is sanctioned by the cover-class-specific construction. On the other hand, the locatum-as-object variants of litter, clutter, and bind are rather marginal, and are to be accommodated via analogical extension. 5.4  The manner of motion and ‘‘cover’’ semantics 5.4.1  Dribble once again Having examined cases which have been classified as non-alternating in previous studies but which may in fact alternate, we are now in a better position to see why some verbs alternate and others do not. Specifically, the discussion of why verbs like dribble may appear in the location-as-object frame in 5.2.1 is quite revealing in this regard.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

As seen above, several verbs included in the non-alternating class in Pinker (1989) (e.g., dribble, drizzle, and slosh) are actually found in the location-as-object frame. (38) I dribbled the bread with olive oil and New Maldon sea salt, then left in a hot oven for about 5 minutes. (http://becksposhnosh.blogspot.com/2005/03/teaching-tim-tips-on-cookingvinnys.html)

In 5.2, this has been attributed to the fact that in (38) the olive oil moves over the surface of the bread by continuously dribbling, thereby covering the surface of the bread, as in Figure 1, repeated here as Figure 4.

Figure 4.  Dribble the bread with olive oil.

Put differently, the lexically specified manner of dribbling can be plausibly integrated into a covering-type scene, precisely because the dribbling motion can be replicated over a surface as in Figure 4. Note that this is not an isolated phenomenon. So-called manner-of-motion verbs like roll or bounce behave exactly this way, in that the rolling motion may occur not only in a fixed location as in Figure 5(a) but also repeatedly along a path as in Figure 5(b).

(a) The ball rolled.

(b) The ball rolled down the hill.

Figure 5.  The rolling motion.

Seen in this light, then, the ‘‘dribbling’’ scene described in (38) can be characterized in a way similar to roll: A liquid’s dribbling motion serves as a manner of motion of the liquid as it moves over the surface, just as the ball’s rolling motion serves as a manner of motion of the ball as it moves down the hill. In fact, this line of reasoning is readily applicable to uncontroversial alternating cases. Thus in (39a) sugar’s sprinkling motion is replicated as it moves over the surface of the pancakes; in (39b) paint’s splashing motion is replicated as it moves over the surface of the canvases. And so on.



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

(39) a. Swedish pioneers served their pancakes with lingonberry jam and sprinkled them with fine sugar. (http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/vol7/no19/historiccommunities.html) b. In the galleries to follow we saw quite a number of canvases splashed haphazardly with paint and framed for our viewing pleasure. (http://blogs.walkerart.org/ecp/2006/02/)

Thus part of the reason why dribble manages to describe a covering-type event as in (38) is because the manner of motion lexically specified by English verbs may be replicated in such a way as to constitute a translational motion, without any morphological changes induced. 5.4.2  Pour and put 5.4.2.1  Pour Let us next turn to pour, which is known to appear in the locatum-as-object frame but never in the location-as-object frame (Pinker 1989; Levin 1993). (40) a. She poured water into the glass. b. *She poured the glass with water.

Given that pour is like dribble or drizzle in specifying the manner of motion of a locatum entity, how come pour never alternates? Clearly, this is due to the particulars of the manners involved. With pouring, a liquid steadily flows into a container.

Figure 6.  Pouring.

Let us examine in turn whether pouring can be interpreted as a type of covering. First, it goes without saying that the scene characteristically described by pour, as in Figure 6, cannot be construed as a type of covering. Next it is possible to pour liquid over a somewhat large area. (41) Pour the sauce over the fish. (BNC)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Figure 7.  Pour the sauce over the fish.

In this case, the sauce may well end up being all over the fish, so that it could be said to cover the fish. Still, pour cannot appear in the location-as-object frame. Why? This is because while the substance may cover a surface as a result of a verbal action, the verbal action itself cannot be said to be a type of covering. Third, one can keep pouring over a surface by shifting one’s position, as in Figure 8.

Figure 8.  Keep pouring by shifting the position.

The scene described in Figure 8 seems to be similar to the dribbling scene discussed above. Nevertheless, there is a crucial difference. Unlike dribble, pour ­describes a liquid’s motion as it goes into a container, not as it moves (over a surface) while in contact with it. This point can be appreciated by noting how difficult it is to imagine a scene in which a liquid’s “pouring” motion is replicated as it moves over a surface, like manner-of-motion verbs. We can now see where Pinker’s account is mistaken as to why verbs like pour do not alternate. According to Pinker, pour cannot appear in the location-as-object variant because it does not lexically specify anything about the result state of a ­location entity. But other verbs like dribble, which likewise do not lexically specify anything about the result state, may nevertheless appear in the location-as-object frame if the lexically specified manner of motion can be construed as a manner of motion of the substance as it moves over the surface. Thus it is not the lack of lexical specification as to the result state but the idiosyncratic manner encoded by pour which is truly responsible for the failure of pour to alternate. 5.4.2.2  Put The verb put is still another verb which has been held to be non-alternating in the literature. (42) a. He put the books on the table. b. *He put the table with the books.



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

In accounting for why (42b) is not possible, we should first get a glimpse of the essential feature of put. In this connection, Taylor (2003) makes a very intriguing observation. Although it has been customary in the generative lexical semantics literature (Jackendoff 1983, 1990; Pinker 1989) to analyze put in terms of “to cause something to move”, Taylor (2003) points out that this alone cannot account for why put, unlike other caused motion verbs (throw, push or move), is rather limited as to the path expressions it can occur with. (43) a.  *Put the book from the floor onto the shelf. b.  *Put the bookshelf up the stairs into the study. (Taylor 2003: 40) (44) a. Put your clothes on. b.  *Put your clothes off. (45) a. Put the letter in the envelope. b.    *Put the stamp off the envelope. (Taylor 2003: 41)

According to Taylor, what is crucial about put is that things go to where they belong (Taylor 2003: 41): The semantic particularity of the verb [=put] is a focus on getting the Theme into a location, and not at all on getting the Theme away from some place, or simply causing it to move along some trajectory. Naturally enough, the Goal will tend to be construed as the place where the Theme ‘‘belongs’’, ‘‘where it should be’’, or ‘‘where (Taylor 2003: 41) the speaker wants it to be’’.

This characterization certainly allows us to explain away the apparent puzzle posed by put, as illustrated in (43)–(45). Now given that the essential feature of put is that things go to where they belong, it is quite obvious that put cannot be used to describe a covering-type event. Hence the unavailability of the location-as-object variant. 5.5  Cover and fill 5.5.1  Why cover and fill are exclusively location-oriented Let us now turn to two representative verbs which occur in the location-as-object frame but not in the locatum-as-object frame: cover and fill. Let us begin with cover. (46) a. *She covered a rug over the floor. b. She covered the floor with a rug.

According to Pinker (1989), verbs like cover are exclusively location-oriented ­precisely because the result state of the location, but not the manner of motion of

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

the locatum, is lexically specified. This seems to be correct. The verb cover can be paraphrased as “to cause a surface to have a layer over it,” suggesting that all that counts is that a surface is affected. The verb meaning per se does not refer to how the locatum entity is moved, before ending up all over the surface. The same reasoning is expected to apply to fill as well. (47) a. *He filled water into the glass. b. He filled the glass with water.

The verb fill can be paraphrased as “to cause a container to become full,” which again suggests that what counts is that a container is affected. It is immaterial how the substance is moved. Thus the inability of both cover and fill to alternate, which has been widely accepted in the literature, can be accounted for by saying that a change of location is simply lacking in the meanings of these verbs. 5.5.2  Does fill alternate? However, a reviewer challenges this widely held observation, saying that fill does alternate. The verb fill actually enters the alternation: You simply fill water into the top section of the dispenser, … The phrase fill water into yields about 16,500 hits on the most common search engines. (an anonymous reviewer’s comment)

It is true that one sometimes comes across examples of fill in the locatum-as-object frame. In fact, one can find attested examples in the BNC. (48) Now it is the turn of time to work its miracle – the new spirit is filled into oak casks and stored in cool, dark warehouses where the long process of maturation begins. (BNC)

It is rather hasty, however, to conclude that fill is an alternating verb. First, in the BNC only three instances of locatum-as-object variant of fill are found, against the far greater number of location-as-object variants. Table 6.  The BNC counts of the two variants of fill and cover fill cover

Locatum-as-object 3 (into) 0 (over)

Location-as-object 1,320 [+20] (with) 1,788 [+159] (with)



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

One can appreciate the quite marginal status of the locatum-as-object variant of fill by comparing this figure with those of typical alternating verbs like spray or load in Table 1. Next comes the reliability issue of the Google data. Indeed, when one enters “fill water into” into the Google search engine, more than 10,000 hits seem to be regularly returned. But just a cursory glance at these data is enough to realize that quite a large number of them do not count. Thus data like (49), which are often found on the web, are not by native speakers of English: (49a) is from a manual by a Russian company (Vectra), and (49b) from an installation manual by a Japanese company (Mitsubishi). (49) a.

Fill water into water tank. (http://www.vectra-air.ru/pdf/VUH-88_APPLE.pdf)

b. Fill water into the feed water pump using a feed water tank. (http://es.mehvac.com/UploadedFiles/Resource/radAC44C320059144132. pdf)

Obviously, such “attested data” by non-native speakers of English should not be given the same rating as those by native speakers of English. More seriously, many of the hits are actually repetitions of the following quote from Bruce Lee, a martial artist. (50) When you fill water into a cup, it becomes the cup. When you fill water into a 

teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can flow or crash. Be water my friend. (Bruce Lee)

Conceivably, this passage is quoted by many people over and over again simply because it sounds exotic, philosophical and enigmatic, not because this usage of fill is quite authentic. It goes without saying that one should not uncritically base one’s claim on these kinds of data, particularly when one is to make any statistical claim at all. Furthermore, even without examining individual data in this way, one can realize that “about 16,500 hits on the most common search engines” which this reviewer reports is simply illusory. When I entered “fill water into” into the Google search engine, indeed 13,300 hits were returned (on June 27, 2007). But when I next entered “filled water into” into the Google, only 1,490 hits were returned (which contained a number of examples constructed, and starred, by linguists interested in the locative alternation, by the way). Why should a simple tense shift result in such a significant decrease of the “attested data”? This is because fill is actually not used as a verb in many of them, as in (51), and when fill is used as a verb at all, it is done so predominantly in the imperative form, as in the instruction manuals cited above.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(51) The channels 52 and 54 direct the fill water into the tank around wall 44 by the openings 64. (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4244124.html)

Thus what really count as attested data by native speakers of English are far smaller in number than this reviewer claims. All this indicates that the locatum-as-object variant of fill is to be accorded only a marginal status, and there is a danger in uncritically basing one’s claim on the “attested data” found by the Google search engine. 5.5.3  Why does fill marginally alternate at all? This said, the fact remains that fill is sometimes found in the locatum-as-object frame. Obviously, it is preferable to be able to account for why the locatumas-object variant of fill is possible at all, rather than shrug them off as marginal. In this connection, the following data illustrate a very interesting property of the locatum-as-object variant of fill. (52) a. Fill hot marmalade into hot jars, leaving ¼ inch headspace. (http://www. uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_07/tomato_marmalade.html) b. Fill water into tank until the indicator reads that it is 3/4 to full and close the cap. (http://www.nur.com/NR/rdonlyres/6DEB39B8-19A5-4B4E9A52-3F21E9D23A76/905/Expedio3200OperatorsManualRevA1.pdf) c. After you have placed the jars on the rack in the canner, fill water into the canner high enough so that the jars are completely submerged in the water. (http://www.weckcanning.com/docs/canning_safely.htm)

Crucially, the container has not strictly become full as a result of “filling”, as indicated by the italicized parts: in (52a) 1/4 inch is left from the top of the jars, in (52b) only 3/4 of the container is occupied, and in (52c) the end point of “filling” is designated by something other than the container becoming full. In short, fill is used somewhat loosely here, with the meaning something like “to put a large amount of substance into something.” But the fact that fill does not mean “to cause a container to become full” indicates that it no longer specifies the state of the location entity (i.e., container). Consequently, nothing requires fill to be location-oriented under this interpretation. It comes as no surprise, then, that fill may be found in the locatum-as-object frame.3 The status of the locatum-as-object variant of fill as a loose usage can be further confirmed by the following consideration. When fill is used in its literal sense “to cause a container to become full,” it can be prefixed with half-, resulting in the meaning “to cause a container to become half-full.” Interestingly enough, half-fill seems to be possible only in the location-as-object frame. Thus when I entered “half fill *with” into the Google search engine, instances like (53a) and (53b) were returned.



Chapter 5.  Another look at putative non-alternating cases 

(53) a. Half-fill spray tank with water and go to prepared field. (http://www.cdc. gov/nasd/docs/d000001-d000100/d000013/d000013.html) b. Half fill glass with ice, add syrup and top up with milk. (http://www.hellosweetbird.com/recipes/cold-drinks-recipes)

But when I entered “half fill *into” into Google, no hits were returned (July 1, 2007). Furthermore, both of my informants confirm this paradigm. They agree that even those who may utter the locatum-as-object variant of fill in a casual speech will not accept the locatum-as-object variant of half-fill. Thus while the locatum-as-object variant of fill may be sometimes attested, this is to be regarded as a loose usage.4 5.6  Summary A number of verbs which have been classified as non-alternating verbs in the literature (Pinker 1989; Levin 1993) may be found in both of the syntactic frames, but this does not necessarily mean that these verbs are full-fledged alternating verbs on a par with spray and load. First, dribble, drizzle and slosh may well be regarded as alternating verbs, in that their occurrence in the location-as-object frame can be accounted for in the same way the location-as-object variants of spray or smear are. A similar thing can be said of wind. But the occurrence of litter, clutter and bind in the locatum-as-object frame is rather marginal and is to be accounted for via analogical extension. The verb fill may sometimes be found in the locatum-as-object frame, but this too should be handled with care. When fill appears in the locatum-as-object frame, it does not strictly mean “to cause a container to become full.” All this once again confirms my thesis that a detailed examination of the verb meaning is necessary in accounting for the alternation.

chapter 6

The locative alternation and verb meaning 6.0  Introduction The discussion so far consists in first identifying the relevant constructions responsible for the syntax and semantics of two variants of a given verb, then checking the compatibility between the verb meaning and the constructional meaning. In this chapter, let us shift perspective and see what can be said about verb meanings in the proposed lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation. First let us clarify what verb meanings are. 6.1  A usage-based view of verb meanings We have already seen that an essentially usage-based view entails that constructions are abstractions over usage events: when we categorize utterances into their types in terms of the syntactic frames like [NP V] or [NP V PP], we get argument structure constructions. Now something entirely parallel can be said of verbs: verb meanings are also abstractions over usage events. Verb meanings are arrived at only as a result of abstracting the commonality from the usage events involving those verbs (cf. Kilgarriff 1997; Croft 2001; Tomasello 2003). A significant fact which needs to be remembered in this connection is that, in our daily linguistic activities, neither verbs nor constructions appear in isolation. Accordingly, one must stop to consider what is meant by the “basic” or “single” verb meaning often spoken of in the literature.  e “basic” or “single” verb meaning is actually the meaning of the verb when it ocTh curs in some other argument structure construction such as the transitive construction. Verb meanings cannot be defined in pure isolation; they are only definable with respect to the construction(s) they occur in. (Croft 2003: 64) Verbs in particular derive their meanings in the first place as integral parts of constructions, so they are naturally interpreted as having semantic values that mesh with them. If a verb has any construction–independent meaning at all, this only arises by further abstraction from the more specific senses it assumes in the particular constructions that spawn it. (Langacker 2005a: 162)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Given that actual usage events are necessarily composites of verbs and constructions, then, one might suppose that the verb meaning can be identified by removing the constructional meaning from the meaning of an utterance. It is true that certain components of an utterance can be straightforwardly attributed to the verb, like the core of meaning that differentiates verbs of the same semantic class such as throw, toss, kick, etc. (“verbal constants” in Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998)). But beyond this, identifying the verb meaning is not as easy as might appear at first sight. For one thing, constructions are available at varying degrees of schematicity. Depending on which level of construction one is talking about, therefore, what is to be attributed to the verb may well vary. As already noted, lower-level constructions take precedence over higher-level, abstract constructions. Thus recall that the two verb-class-specific constructions (i.e., the cover-class-specific construction and the fill-class-specific construction) are sufficient to account for the syntax and semantics of the location-as-object variant in English, as extensively argued in Chapter 3. Logically, therefore, the speaker need not induce any construction more abstract than these two verb-class-specific constructions. But nothing prevents the speaker from inducing a more schematic construction, either, in which case the meaning attributed to the verb will be far richer. Linguists, however, cannot determine which construction plays an active role in the speaker’s mind. Even if one decides upon the level of abstraction, verb meanings cannot be neatly obtained by simply removing the constructional meaning from the utterance, for there is no reason why the verb meaning and the constructional meaning should not overlap. After all, in a usage-based theory grammatical information is redundantly represented. Besides, as Croft (2003) convincingly argues, this question is not decidable by purely linguistic evidence alone. Ultimately, only psycholinguistic experimentation might be able to establish the generalizations formed by individual speakers (Croft 2003: 64). In fact, as Langacker (2005a) argues, it is more realistic to suppose that the verb meaning and the constructional meaning are not mutually exclusive. I n my usage based perspective, verbs and verbal constructions do not develop independently, but represent different directions of abstraction (or schematization) from complex expressions. It thus seems perfectly reasonable that particular semantic properties of those expressions, e.g., the caused-motion facet of [Mia kicked the ball into the stands], should inhere in both. (Langacker 2005a: 163)

It now seems clear that we as linguists can only speak of verb meanings as something that is straightforwardly attributed to the verb, as noted above, or as something that can be attributed to the verb alone (rather than to constructions). With this view of the verb meaning in mind, let us go on to consider once again the following three verbs: load, spray, and spread.



Chapter 6.  The locative alternation and verb meaning 

6.2  The lexical encoding of three alternating verbs 6.2.1  Load In the case of load, reference to both locatum and location entities is essential. The location entity is a container, although it need not be a container in the strict sense. Thus the location entity of load ranges from artifacts that are readily recognizable as containers in (1), through entities that are not so easily recognizable in (2), to entities which, without being used with load, are rather hard to construe as containers in (3). (1) a. When you load the gun, then you know what you’re holding. b. Load your camera before you start, and have spare films (removed from their containers) within easy reach. c. In the pub, red plush and genteel fake gas globes, Francis loaded the juke box. d. Load the cassette into the camcorder in dust-free conditions. (2) a. As Phil loaded his syringe and Ricky tried to calm the terrified pony, whose eyes were quite glazed now, they heard frantic barking outside. b. When we loaded the lighters we got seven and six a day, at the latter end. c. Load the program “filename” into the program area. (3) a. If you load up your sentence with trifles before you’ve built it properly, it will of course fall down. b. If you know in advance that a customer is going to take six months to pay you instead of one and you still want to make the sale, then consider loading your price to cover your finance costs. c. These volcanoes are large landforms which load the underlying crust and are partly isostatically supported by deep roots. (all from BNC)

Thus the verb meaning of load may be characterized as something like “to transfer objects onto/into a container, and fill that container,” as described in Figure1.

Figure 1.  Schematic scene of load.

It is straightforward to arrive at the two variants in (4) from this verb meaning. (4) a. John loaded bricks onto the truck. b. John loaded the truck with bricks.

The verb meaning of load makes schematic reference to a transferred entity and a container, which can be elaborated by bricks and the truck, respectively. Accordingly,

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

the semantic structures are combined to yield the scene for load bricks onto the truck, as in Figure 2. VP: load bricks onto the truck

V: load

NP: bricks

PP: onto the truck

P: onto

NP: the truck

Figure 2.  The compostion of load bricks onto the truck.

Alternatively, a transferred entity and a container entity may be elaborated by bricks and the truck in the manner described in Figure 3. This time, the semantic structures are combined to yield the scene for load the truck with bricks.1,2 VP: load the truck with bricks

V: load

NP: the truck PP: with bricks

P: with

Figure 3.  The composition of load the truck with bricks.

NP: bricks



Chapter 6.  The locative alternation and verb meaning 

6.2.2  Spray The verb meaning of spray seems to be characterizable as something like “to send a liquid or liquid-like entity in a mist, which ends up covering a target,” as shown in (5). (5) a. When he saw us he choked and sprayed the beer onto the lawn. b. The most effective way of combatting river blindness until fairly recently was by spraying the breeding grounds with insecticide… c. … and if they saw anything suspicious sprayed the area with machine guns. (BNC)

Thus spray seems to make schematic reference to both liquid and target entities besides the sprayer entity, parallel to the case of load. Unlike load, however, the sprayer entity need not be overtly expressed.

(6) Water sprayed onto the lawn. (Goldberg 1995)

One might suppose, then, that only the liquid and target entities are essential to spray. However, Croft (1988) observes that the following sentence is acceptable.

(7) The broken fire hydrant sprayed water all afternoon 

(Croft 1998: 43)

Here the sprayer and liquid entities are present, to the exclusion of the target entity. In fact, by searching the BNC, I have come across the following attested data, in which only the liquid entity is overtly expressed. (8) a. Spittle sprayed from his mouth … b. It was supposed to be the parched Wild West, with dust spraying up from the horses’ hooves and the wheels. c. Richard was like a gusher of newly tapped oil spraying about in all directions. d. In went another fistful of crisps and when she spoke again, out sprayed the crumbs. (BNC)

Consequently, what is truly essential to spray is the emission of a liquid entity in a mist.

Figure 4.  The manner of spraying.

The emitted entity may reach some other entity, but this is not strictly implied. Thus the verb meaning of spray may be more accurately characterized as “to send liquid in a mist, which typically ends up covering a target.”

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Again, the two variants can be arrived at rather easily, starting from this verb meaning. The liquid and target entities may be elaborated either as in Figure 5, or as in Figure 6.

(9) a. John sprayed paint onto the wall. b. John sprayed the wall with paint. VP: spray paint onto the wall

V: spray

NP: paint

PP: onto the wall

P: onto

NP: the wall

Figure 5.  The composition of spary paint onto the wall. VP: spray the wall (with paint)

V: spray

NP: the wall

PP: with paint

P: with

Figure 6.  The composition of spary the wall (with paint).

NP: paint



Chapter 6.  The locative alternation and verb meaning 

6.2.3  Spread That the sense of moving something to a location is not essential is even more clearly seen with spread. Unlike other alternating verbs, including load and spray, spread may occur in syntactic frames quite unrelated to the two variants of the locative alternation. (10) a. The fire is slowly spreading from the 3rd floor in both directions. b. Since the virus can spread through blood, transfusions could account for the 25 per cent of AIDS victims who are not gay. c. … a dull pain spreads from the region of the bite and gradually becomes more severe, causing cramps, vomiting, perspiration and copious salivation. d. … then it may be best to spread the event over two days. e. Eventually the story spread that the dictator himself was aboard, observing his subjects through the mirror windows… f. On 11 December the rumour spread that the French were landing in Pevensey Bay, like William the Conqueror 700 years earlier. (BNC) (11) a. The beautiful island of Gigha spread out before us with a cluster of houses around the little bay of Ardminish. b. Then it (=butterfly) spreads its wings and flies away, ready for its first meal of nectar! c. He spread his hands helplessly. (BNC)

Rather, what is essential to spread is 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 1981, 1982; Lakoff 1987).

Figure 7.  the image-schema of spread.

As seen in Chapter 3, this image-schematic structure can be developed either into a scene in which butter is put on the bread, as in Figure 8, or into a scene in which the bread is covered, as in Figure 9. Thus while spread may alternate between the two variants, its lexical encoding is rather different form that of load.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach VP: spread butter on the bread

V: spread

NP: butter

PP: on the bread

Figure 8.  The composition of spread butter on the bread. VP: spread the bread with butter

V: spread

NP: the bread

PP: with butter

Figure 9.  The composition of spread the bread with butter.

6.3  Two types of lexical encoding 6.3.1  The scene-encoding type and the constant-insertion type The discussion so far has revealed that the three verbs, while all entering into the locative alternation, nevertheless differ as to the lexical encoding. To load means “to transfer objects into/onto a container and thereby fill that container”; to spray “to send a liquid in a mist (in such a way that the liquid ends up covering an area)”; and to spread means an event/state that saliently involves the image-schema as described in Figure 7. Clearly, the verb meaning of load most closely approximates the semantics of the two verb-class-specific constructions responsible for the two variants, in that



Chapter 6.  The locative alternation and verb meaning 

the sense of moving something to some place and that of filling a container are there from the start. The verb spray also approximates the semantics of the two constructions, but less so than load. And spread is even less so, for neither the sense of moving something to some place nor the sense of covering a surface is essential to this verb. This difference manifests in connection to the possibility of alternation being conditioned by some factors other than the verb. Since both a change of location and the “fill” semantics are so essential to load, this verb can enter into the locative alternation irrespective of the entities chosen as locatum and location. (12) a. John loaded bricks onto the truck. b. John loaded the truck with bricks. (13) a. John loaded the bullets into the gun. b. John loaded the gun with the bullets.

By contrast, since spread in itself does not specify the sense of moving something to some place or that of covering a surface, even when a locatum-as-object variant is possible, its corresponding location-as-object variant may not be available. Thus spread enters into the alternation only when the requirement of “cover” semantics is met, as pointed out in 3.4.2. (14) a. He spread a blanket over the sleeping child. b. *He spread the sleeping child with a blanket.

All this indicates that so-called locative alternation verbs are not homogeneous. Most likely, they form a continuum. At one end are verbs like load, which lexically specify both a change of location and the “cover/fill” semantics and, therefore, can be safely characterized as locative alternation verbs. At the other end are verbs like spread, whose possibility of entering into the alternation is conditioned by the choice of locatum and location entities, and which are not strictly locative alternation verbs. Since the former type of verbs encode a scene virtually identical to a scene denoted by VPs, they are referred to as the “scene-encoding” type. In contrast, with the latter type of verbs some constant which characterizes the core meaning is embedded or inserted into a scene denoted by VPs. So they are referred to as the “constant-insertion” type. 6.3.2  Pinker (1989) As pointed out in 2.3, Pinker’s theory is purely verb-centered, holding verbs alone to be responsible for the possibility of alternation. Since the meaning of a variant is equated with the verb meaning, his solution to the locative alternation amounts to derivationally relating two verb meanings.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach EVENT

Effect

ACT THING

THING

[(Bob)]

[(paint)]

EVENT:locational GO

THING PATH (paint)

[ ] to PLACE

THING (wall) EVENT ACT THING THING

effect

[(Bob)] [(wall)]

means

EVENT

EVENT

GO THING PROPERTY ACT THING THING

Effect EVENT

(wall) GO THING PATH to PLACE

THING

Figure 10.  The semantic structures in Pinker (1989).

This approach may look plausible for the “scene-encoding” type, where the distinction between a verb meaning and the meaning of a variant is not so significant. But such an approach has difficulty handling the “constant-insertion” type, as exemplified by spread. In order to accommodate the fact that spread is sometimes acceptable in the location-as-object variant, while sometimes not, Pinker would have to posit different verbs, spread1 and spread2, as noted in 2.3.2. 6.3.3  Goldberg (1995, 2006)3 Goldberg’s constructional account crucially differs from Pinker’s lexical rule approach in distinguishing between the verb meaning and the phrasal meaning (i.e., the meaning of a variant). In this sense, her account and mine are the same. In fact, the two accounts amount to claiming very similar things, at least for certain cases. Goldberg represents the verb meaning simply as a list of semantic roles. (15) a. load 〈loader, container, [loaded-theme]〉 (Goldberg 1995: 178) b. load 〈loader, container, loaded-theme〉 (Goldberg 2006: 41)

This might create the impression that in her account, the fusion of verb meaning and constructional meaning is based on semantic roles, in contrast to my account, which employs pictorial representations to describe verbal scenes.



Chapter 6.  The locative alternation and verb meaning 

Despite appearances, however, Goldberg’s theory is scene-based, and the list of participant roles is an abbreviatory way of capturing the rich frame semantics of the associated scene. Goldberg explicitly states the necessity to refer to rich frame semantic knowledge in order to characterize verb meanings (Goldberg 1995: 27), and she argues that roles are semantically constrained “relational slots in the dynamic scene” (Goldberg 1995: 49). That the list of participant roles is to be taken as a shorthand way of capturing the “scenes” of my account is further appreciated by the following consideration. Recall that a locatum-as-object variant of load is possible because by focusing upon the locatum’s movement, one can understand the composed verbal scene as an event of change of location. When cognitively salient entities in a scene are specifically picked out, this means that from the loading scene “someone (α) transfers objects (β) onto a container (γ), and fills that container (γ) with objects (β),” a change of location interpretation “someone (α) transfers objects (β) onto a container (γ)” is obtained. loading scene

Someone (α) transfers objects (β) onto a container (γ), and fills that container (γ) with objects (β) load1: ‘Someone (α) transfers objects (β) onto a container (γ)’

Figure 11.  The locatum-as-object variant of load and its scene and participants.

On the other hand, that a location-as-object variant is obtained by focusing upon the location translates into the statement that an interpretation “someone (α) fills a container (γ) with objects (β)” arises from basically the same loading scene. loading scene

Someone (α) transfers objects (β) onto a container (γ), and fills that container (γ) with objects (β) load2: ‘Someone (α) fills a container (γ) with objects (β)’

Figure 12.  The location-as-object variant of load and its scene and participants.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Thus Goldberg’s account and mine are very similar, as far as the “scene-encoding” type is concerned. Goldberg’s account, however, has difficulty handling the “constant-insertion” type. As already seen in 2.3, Goldberg’s theory would represent the verb meaning of spread as in (17), based on the omissibility facts in (16). (16) a. #He spread butter. b. *He spread the bread. (17) spread 〈spreader, semi-liquid, [target]〉

The list of participant roles alone in (17), however, does not tell us why spread alternates in (18) but not in (19). (18) a. He spread butter on the bread. b. He spread the bread with butter. (19) a. He spread a blanket over the sleeping child. b. *He spread the sleeping child with a blanket.

This is because spread does not lexically specify the type of event expressible at the phrasal level, at least not in the way that load does. Consequently, the two scenes described at the phrasal level may end up rather different, as in (18) and (19). But this difference cannot be properly captured by means of a list of semantic roles. Additionally, Goldberg’s theory has difficulty even with spray. The verb meaning of spray should be represented as in (21), based on the facts in (20).4 (20) a. Bob sprayed paint onto the wall. (locatum-as-object variant) b. Bob sprayed the wall with paint. (location-as-object variant) c. Water sprayed onto the lawn. (intransitive variant) (21) spray 〈sprayer, target, liquid〉

The list in (21) indicates that the target role and the liquid role are profiled but the sprayer role is not. It follows, then, that the former two roles are obligatorily expressed but the sprayer role may be left unexpressed. As noted above, however, even the target role may be left unexpressed, as in (22). (22) The broken fire hydrant sprayed water all afternoon. (Croft 1998: 43)

It is conceivable that some of the entities evoked by the verb meaning are so cognitively salient that they must be overtly expressed whenever the verb is employed. Quite probably, by profiled participant roles Goldberg means these salient entities. To the extent that this supposition is valid, Goldberg is certainly right in differentially representing participant roles. It is just that the difference as to cognitive saliency is likely a matter of degree, and cannot be fully captured by the profiled/ non-profiled dichotomy.



Chapter 6.  The locative alternation and verb meaning 

To recapitulate, Goldberg’s account is still verb-centered and is plausible for the “scene-encoding” type but not for the “constant-insertion” type. 6.4  Summary A usage-based view entails that verb meanings, besides constructional meanings, are also abstractions over usage-events. Also, there is no guarantee that verb meanings can be clearly separated from constructional meanings, in that there are likely to be overlaps between verbs and constructions. So all we can speak of as verb meanings is actually the minimum that should be attributed to verbs. Following up on this idea, examination of the verb meanings of load, spray, and spread shows us that verb meanings are not uniform: With load a scene-like meaning is encoded (“scene-encoding” type); with spread some constant characterizing the core meaning is encoded (“constant-insertion” type); spray is somewhere in between. With “scene-encoding” types, the verb meaning and the VP meaning are very close to each other. But with “constant-insertion” types, the distance between verb meaning and VP meaning is rather wide.

chapter 7

Types of verb meaning and types of alternation 7.0  Introduction In the literature on the locative alternation, attention has been paid exclusively to cases in which a single verb appears in two distinct syntactic frames. But there is no logical reason why alternation phenomena should be limited to those involving two variants. Also, verbs entering into the alternation need not be homogeneous, as has been just revealed. In this chapter, we will see a variety of alternations. Let us begin by those exhibited by scene-encoding types of verbs.1 7.1  Alternations exhibited by scene-encoding types 7.1.1  One scene yielding more than two variants The verb wrap has three variants as in (1). For convenience sake, let us refer to them as an around variant, a with variant, and an in variant. (1) a. He wrapped shiny paper around a present. b. He wrapped a present with paper. c. He wrapped a present in paper.

The three variants receive basically the same explanation as before: the verb meaning of wrap allows each of the three variants to be sanctioned by a relevant verb-class-specific construction. The validity of this line of approach is supported by the fact that each of the variants is exhibited by a semantically related class of verbs. The around variant is found with verbs like coil, curl, loop, roll, spin, twirl, twist, whirl, and wind (Levin 1993: 116). (2) a. Cora coiled the rope around the post. b.  *Cora coiled the post with the rope.

The in variant is found with verbs like plant or sow. (3) a. The workers planted the trees in the garden. b. The workers planted the garden with (*the) trees.

(Fraser 1971: 605)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

And the with variant is found with verbs like cover, as has been amply shown already. Now the availability of the three variants of wrap is not very surprising. Evidently, alternation between the around variant and with variant is fundamentally the same as the locative alternation as commonly understood. While alternation between the in variant and with variant has been little discussed in the literature, many verbs actually enter into this alternation. (4) a. He sheathed the television {with/in} a coverlet. b. She covered her face {with/in} a towel. c. She hid her face {with/in} her hands. (5)

a. b. c. d. e.

Demonstrators doused a car {with/in} petrol. She soaked the sponge {with/in} water. coat the fish {with/in} seasoned flour. smother a steak {with/in} mushrooms. shroud the building {with/in} scaffolding.

(6) a. In the blazing Florida sun the athletes were soon drenched {in/with} sweat. b. The dolphin had become entangled {in/with} the fishing nets.  (CAMBRIDGE)

It follows then that wrap is a limiting case in which the so-called locative alternation and the in – with alternation are both possible. Accordingly, the three variants are obtained by imposing three different construals on the verbal scene, as shown in Figure 1. Since wrap seems to be safely regarded as a “scene-encoding” type of verb, the possibility of the three variants can be attributed to the verb meaning’s compatibility with the semantics associated with the three forms. Thus the verb meaning of wrap

To put around a flexible object extended in two dimensions

wrap shiny paper around a present

Figure 1.  Three variants of wrap.

To cover the surface of an object

wrap a present with paper

To put an object into a layer-like medium

wrap a present in paper



Chapter 7.  Types of verb meaning and alternation 

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 appears in the around variant. 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 verb 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 the edges of the shelf and is bent around them. (Pinker 1989: 127)

What distinguishes the alternation of wrap from the so-called locative a­ lternation is thus simply that its verb meaning allows for three, rather than two, ways of interpretation. 7.1.2  Two scenes yielding multiple variants 7.1.2.1  Pack The verb pack is known to participate in the locative alternation as in (7) (Pinker 1989; Levin 1993). (7) a. John packed books into the box. b. John packed the box with books.

What has been little recognized in the literature, however, is the fact that pack also occurs in the following two syntactic frames. (8) a. He packed the newspaper around china. b. He packed the china in newspaper.

The four variants cannot possibly be attributed to s single scene. Rather, two different, though related scenes are responsible for the alternation exhibited by pack. The verb meaning of pack contains a scene (pack2) that consists of putting something into a container and filling that container. But since the act of packing is often idiomatically understood relative to the scenario of sending things like luggage, the verb meaning of pack contains another preceding scene as well (pack1). That is, one quite often puts paper around an object and covers it, typically so as to protect that object. The entirety of this complex scene gives rise to the four variants, as in Figure 2. Thus the verb meaning of pack can be characterized as scenario-based.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach pack1

pack the newspaper pack the china around the china in newspaper

pack2

pack books into the box

pack the box with books

Figure 2.  Four variants of pack.

7.1.2.2  Trim Nemoto (1996, 2005), following Hook (1983), observes that the verb trim behaves both as a verb of putting and as one of removal. In the former case trim appears in the with variant alone, as in (9), while in the latter it occurs either in the from variant or in the of variant, as in (10). (9) a. *Jane trimmed lights over the tree. b. Jane trimmed the tree with lights. (10) a. John trimmed overgrown branches from the tree. b. John trimmed the tree of overgrown branches. 

(Nemoto 1996: 167)

The mere fact that one and the same verb should behave both as a verb of putting and as one of removal may not be so surprising, for verbs like wipe have been reported to behave in this way (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991). (11) a. Kay wiped the polish onto the table. b. Kay wiped the fingerprints from the counter.

Clearly, Levin & Rappaport Hovav regard the two versions of wipe as distinct senses with different lexical semantic representations, as confirmed by the quote below. (12) a. shovel the sand into the truck. b. shovel the snow off the walk. 

(Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 28)

In contrast, when a single verb name is associated with several lexical semantic representations that are based on different lexical semantic templates but share the same constant, each of the pairings of a particular verb name with a lexical semantic representation is associated with its own distinct argument expression. For instance, shovel expresses its arguments one way when it is a verb of removal and another way when it is a verb of putting.  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 28–29, my emphasis)



Chapter 7.  Types of verb meaning and alternation 

However, Nemoto (1996, 2005) observes that the putting sense and the removal sense can be coordinated with wipe, as in (13a), which suggests that the two versions of wipe are actually two manifestations of a single sense with different path specifications. Significantly, this is not the case with trim, as shown in (13b). (13) a. John wiped the fingerprints FROM the table and polish INTO the table. b.   ??They trimmed Laura’s tree WITH lights and Mary’s tree OF overgrown branches.  (Nemoto 1996: 170)

All this indicates that the two senses of trim are due to two different scenes, which cannot be collapsed into a single scene. Thus, one has to admit that trim is polysemous between two meanings: one is to cut away untidy parts, and the other is to add an object to a location. The former meaning gives rise to the from variant and the of variant, while the latter meaning the with variant. It should be noted at this pint, though, that the two meanings are related: one makes something neat and smooth by cutting away its untidy parts, the other causes an aesthetic or qualitative change by adding an object to a location, as in decorating or adorning something. That is, the two meanings lead to a very similar effect, and can, therefore, be regarded as instantiations of a higher-order schema “to cause something to become neat and tidy.” Consequently, the verb meaning of trim includes a network in which the two meanings are related via this higher-order schema, as in Figure 3.

trim to make something neat and tidy to make something neat or smooth by cutting away untidy parts

to remove something from a place

to cause something not to be at a place

trim NP from NP Figure 3.  Three variants of trim.

trim NP of NP

to decorate something, especially round its edges

to decorate something

trim NP with NP

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

7.1.3  Summary The locative alternation can arise from varied verb meanings, not necessarily from a single scene as with load. A single scene may be open to three different interpretations, as with wrap. Or the verb meaning may contain two scenes, which are related via a scenario as with pack or via a higher-order schema as with trim. Each of the scenes in turn may give rise to more than one variant, the way a single scene of load leads to the two variants. verb meaning lexically encoded scene 1

composed scene 1A

composed scene 1B

composed scene 1C

wrap shiny paper around a present

wrap a present with paper

wrap a present in paper

(a) wrap verb meaning scenario lexically encoded scene 1

composed scene 1A

lexically encoded scene 2

composed scene 1B

pack the newspaper around china

pack the china in newspaper

composed scene 2A

composed scene 2B

pack books into the box

pack the box with books

(b) pack verb meaning higher-order schema lexically encoded scene 1

composed scene 1A trim overgrown branches from the tree

composed scene 1B trim the tree of overgrown branches

(c) trim Figure 4.  How the variants arise.

lexically encoded scene 2

composed scene 2 trim the tree with lights



Chapter 7.  Types of verb meaning and alternation 

7.2  Alternations exhibited by constant-insertion types 7.2.1  Roll As far as I know, no scholar has discussed the verb roll in the context of locative alternation. Rather, roll is often cited as a representative member of the mannerof-motion verbs as exemplified in (14) and (15) (Pinker 1989; Levin 1993). (14) a. The ball rolled. b. I rolled the ball. (15) a. The ball rolled down the hill. b. I rolled the ball down the hill.

However, a search of the BNC reveals that roll may occur in the syntactic frame [NP V NP PP]. (16) a. She rolls her fries in ketchup and nibbles at them vaguely, not like she’s starving at all. b. Scrub the potatoes well and make a single cut along the top of each. Roll them in salt and bake for one and a half hours (or until they “give” when pressed) in a moderately hot oven (190°, 375° F, Gas Mark 5). (BNC) (17) a. I’d roll my Mary in my arms. b. They took a double blanket … rolled him in it like you roll a papoose on a cradle board … put where there were mules, not in soldier tent. c. T’zin stood by as two officers rolled Nogai in a blanket so that he could be taken down the street. d. Silver joked with him as he scrambled out and rolled him in a patch of dead oak leaves until he was dry. e. He rolled himself in his riding cloak, lay down upon the broad strawcovered pallet which covered the bench, and slept. (BNC)

The PP may also be an into-phrase. (18) a. We cut canned biscuits into 4 pieces each and dipped them into butter and rolled them into cinnamon/sugar mixture. (http://www. birthdaypartyideas.com/html/cooking_parties_14. html) b. I got underneath a road bridge, rolled myself into my blanket and prepared to spend the night under the bridge. (http://www.wirenot.net/X/Articles/ aug-dec2002/E-F/fearnot.shtml)

In fact, roll is found to occur in the following two forms, apparently very similarly to load.2 (19) a. Though better last night–Rodney woke twice to John peacefully sleeping, rolled blanket around him like a tortilla. (http://seperis.illuminatedtext. com/sga/pet8.html)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

b. The soldiers rolled him in a blanket and took him to Fort Sill. (http://www.rootsweb.com/~okgarvin/ipp/glosterallenipp.htm)

Again, one cannot attribute these two variants to a single scene. Both variants denote a change of location by a direct object entity, so that the two eventualities cannot be organized into a scene that is open to two different construals. Rather, this alternation stems from the image-schematic properties of roll. As noted above, roll may appear intransitively or transitively with a directional PP as in (20). Crucially, these sentences convey that a round object moves along a path by turning over and over as in Figure 5. (20) a. The ball rolled down the hill. b. I rolled the ball down the hill.

Figure 5.  The manner of rolling.

Let us refer to this schema as roll-schema A. Now the roll in (21) can be analyzed as instantiating roll-schema A, with him being construed as a round object in motion, as in Figure 6. (21) They rolled him in a blanket.

Figure 6.  Roll him in a blanket.

Next, roll may describe a change of shape as in (22). (22) Harry rolled the newspaper and put a rubber band around it.

Figure 7.  Change of shape by rolling.



Chapter 7.  Types of verb meaning and alternation 

The relevant image-schema here, roll-schema B, is related to roll-schema A via nonreflexive ←→ reflexive path image-schema transformation (Lakoff 1987: 443). That is, while roll-schema A depicts a round turning object that is distinct from its path (as shown in Figure 5), roll-schema B depicts a flat object that turns over part of itself, as in Figure 7. Thus the newspaper of (22) is simultaneously both a trajector and a landmark (Lindner 1981, 1982). Now roll-schema B is applicable to the roll in (23), where the blanket is ­construed as undergoing the motion in question as in Figure 8. (23) They rolled a blanket around him.

Figure 8.  Roll a blanket around him.

Thus the alternation of roll arises precisely because the two related, but different, image-schemas can be integrated into two composed scenes, which happen to be identical. Like the alternation of load, it can be said to involve alternate construals of the same scene. But it is the two related image-schemas, rather than the scene itself, which are primarily responsible for the alternate construals. Accordingly, the two related image-schemas ought to be part of the encoded verb meaning of roll, as in Figure 9. Clearly, the alternation exhibited by roll is similar to that of spread, in that the alternation is due to the relevant image-schematic structure being integrated into more than one composed scene, as in Figure 10. image schema:

composed scene:

roll a blanket around him Figure 9.  Two variants of roll.

roll him in the blanket

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach verb meaning spread-image-schema composed scene 1

composed scene 2

spread butter on the bread spread the bread with butter

verb meaning roll-schema A ← → roll-schema B composed scene A

composed scene B

roll a blanket a round him

roll him in a blanket

(a) spread

(b) roll

Figure 10.  Constant-insertion types.

In this sense, the alternation of roll, as well as that of spread, can be characterized as being induced by the “constant-insertion” type of verb. Now a very interesting correlation emerges between the possibility of alternation and the type of lexical encoding. When verbs belonging to the “scene­encoding” type enter into the locative alternation, they inherently involve the notion of moving something to some place and that of covering/filling. By ­contrast, verbs belonging to the “constant-insertion” type may alternate between the two frames even if they do not involve either of the two notions. In fact, the latter may appear in quite a wide range of syntactic frames. As already seen in 3.4.2, spread is found in a number of syntactic frames quite unrelated to the two variants of the locative alternation. Similarly, roll may be found in a number of syntactic frames unrelated to the locative alternation, as long as one of the four schemas depicted in Figure 11 is instantiated (Iwata 2002). (24) the countryside which rolled away for miles and miles. (25) a. He rolled the yarn into a ball. b. The hedgehog rolled into a spiky ball. (26) Mary rolled the dough lightly with a rolling pin.

Locomotion-schema

reflexive-path schema

‘Move’ schema ‘Press’ schema Figure 11.  The network of schemas for roll.

(COBUILD)



Chapter 7.  Types of verb meaning and alternation 

This is because what is essential to spread/roll is the relevant image-schema, and a given event/state may be categorized as spreading/rolling as long as this constant (=image schema) is successfully integrated into the composed scene. It is only natural, then, that verbs belonging to the “constant-insertion” type behave differently from those belonging to the “scene-encoding” type. 7.2.2  Denominal verbs There is a class of verbs which systematically behave as members of “constantinsertion” type: denominal verbs (Clark & Clark 1979). In the literature, certain types of denominal verbs have been attracting attention because of their parallelism with the variants of the locative alternation verbs (Jackendoff 1990; Buck 1993, 1997; Kageyama 1997; Iwata 1998; among others). Thus locatum verbs like (27a) realize a location argument as direct object, like the location-as-object variant in (28a), while location verbs like (27b) realize a locatum argument as its direct object, like the locatum-as-object variant in (28b). (27) a. butter the bread b. bottle the wine (28) a. spray the wall with paint b. spray paint onto the wall

Furthermore, a with PP and a directional PP may even appear, provided that these PPs successfully add non-redundant information (Jackendoff 1990).3 (29) a. butter the bread with cheap margarine b. bottle the wine in tall green bottles

(Jackendoff, 1990:164) (Jackendoff 1990: 170)

The parallelism extends to verbs of removal. Locatum verbs like (30a) realize a location argument as direct object, like the location-as-object variant in (31a), while location verbs like (30b) realize a locatum argument as direct object, like the locatum-as-object variant in (31b). (30) a. skin the rabbit b. mine the gold (31) a. clear the table of dishes b. clear dishes from the table

Now remarkably, some denominal verbs may be used to describe both addition and removal senses. Buck (1997) illustrates this phenomenon by citing the following data. (32) a. dust the cake pans (= ‘put flour dust on’) b. dust the shelves (= ‘remove dust from the shelves’)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(33) a. feather an arrow (= ‘put feathers on the arrow’) b. feather a goose (= ‘remove the feathers from the goose’) (34) a. seed the lawn (= ‘put grass seed on the lawn’) b. seed the grapes (= ‘remove the seeds from the grapes’) (35) a. string the guitar (= ‘put strings on the guitar’) b. string the beans (= ‘remove the strings from the beans’)  (Buck 1997: 4-5)

This is not surprising once one realizes that denominal verbs can be characterized as belonging to the “constant-insertion” type. It has been recognized that not just any type of event/state can be denoted by denominal verbs, but only those events/states that saliently involve the parent noun (Clark & Clark 1979; Kiparsky 1997; Farrell 1998; among many others). Thus Farrell (1998) observes as follows: the function of N → V conversion is to name a routine process metonymically: a salient constant in the routine stands for the entire process. (Farrell 1998: 47)

Put differently, constraints on the denominal verb formation can be stated as in (36). (36) Constraints on N → V conversion A verb of the form [V [N]] is appropriately named if a. a characteristic behavior of the thing designated by N is the type of behavior that the verb designates, or b. a central property of the thing designated by N is involvement in the type of event that the verb designates. (Farrell 1998: 47)

Given this line of characterization of denominal verbs, the verb meaning of a denominal verb may be stated as something like “an event/state which saliently involves N.” When the denominal verb is accompanied by a direct object NP, this verb meaning is combined with the semantic structure of the direct object NP to yield a composed scene, parallel to “ordinary” verbs. Since the denominal verb is capable of expressing quite a wide variety of events/states, as long as they are within the limits imposed by (36), it is no wonder that one and the same parent noun may find its way into two composed scenes which are semantically quite opposite to each other. [N feather] composed scene 1 feather an arrow

Figure 12.  Two variants of the denominal verb feather.

composed scene 2 feather a goose



Chapter 7.  Types of verb meaning and alternation 

Thus the apparent vagary of denominal verbs can be readily accommodated. Interestingly enough, the duality of brush noted in 4.4.2 is amenable to a similar explanation. Recall that brush may behave either as a locative alternation verb as in (37), parallel to (38), or as a wipe-class verb as in (39), parallel to (40). (37) a. John brushed melted butter over the loaves. b. John brushed the loaves with melted butter. (38) a. John loaded bricks onto the wagon. b. John loaded the wagon with bricks (39) a. John brushed the crumbs onto the floor. b. John brushed the crumbs off the table. (40) a. Kay wiped the fingerprints from the counter. b. Kay wiped the polish onto the table.

(Nemoto 2001)

Nemoto (2001, 2005) observes that ‘‘smearing brush’’ as exemplified in (37) means to distribute some liquid over a surface by brushing, while ‘‘sweeping brush’’ as in (39) means to brush with the intention of moving some foreign substance away from the surface. In 4.4.2, this phenomenon has been approached from the side of constructions: the syntax and semantics of the two versions of brush can be differentially treated by means of verb-class-specific constructions. When seen from the side of verbs, however, this phenomenon invites the following question: Why can the verb brush be either smearing brush or sweeping brush in the first place? The answer is to be found in the fact that the verb brush can be regarded as a denominal verb. The verb meaning of brush (as a verb) may be characterized in terms of an event/state which saliently involves ‘‘brush.’’ Now significantly, the instrument used in smearing butter over the loaves and that used in sweeping a table are both called “brush,” although they need not be strictly identical. As a consequence, brush can be plausibly integrated either into a smearing scene or into a sweeping scene. [N brush] composed scene 1 (= smear) brush melted butter over the loaves

brush the loaves with melted butter

composed scene 2 (= sweep) brush the crumbs onto the floor

brush the crumbs off the table

Figure 13.  ‘‘smearing’’ brush and ‘‘sweeping’’ brush.

Thus while some verbs display far more complex patterns of alternation than typical locative alternation verbs like load, this divergence is not very surprising from my viewpoint. All these verbs belong to the “constant-insertion” type, in contrast to

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

verbs like load, which belong to the “scene-encoding” type. Since the two types of verbs differ as to lexical encoding, it is only natural that they behave rather differently. 7.2.3  Deadjectival verbs The discussion so far may create the impression that verbs of the “constantinsertion” type are simply those which have been left out of the previous studies on alternation phenomena (Pinker 1989; Levin 1993; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991; among others). Yet instances of the “constant-insertion” type are found even among the set of verbs which have been rather extensively discussed in these previous studies. In the generative lexical semantics literature (Pinker 1989; Levin 1993; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991), three types of alternation are well-known: that exhibited by clear as in (41), that exhibited by load as in (42) and that exhibited by wipe as in (43). (41) a. Doug cleared dishes from the table. b. Doug cleared the table of dishes. (42) a. John loaded bricks onto the wagon. b. John loaded the wagon with bricks (43) a. Kay wiped the fingerprints from the counter. b. Kay wiped the polish onto the table.

The three types of alternation are characterized by distinct sets of syntactic frames, and different syntactic frames are associated with different semantics.4 Consequently, the class of verbs entering into one type of alternation is different from the class of verbs entering into another. Thus load cannot occur in the syntactic frames available for clear, as in (44). Nor can wipe appear in the with form or in the of form, as in (45). (44) a. *John loaded bricks from the wagon. b.  *John loaded the wagon of bricks. (45) a. *Kay wiped the table with the polish. b.  *Kay wiped the table of the polish.

We are naturally led to expect, then, that the same is true of clear. As a matter of fact, the sentences in (46) are unacceptable. (46) a.  *Doug cleared the table with dishes. b.  *Doug cleared dishes onto the table.

However, Keith Sanders (personal communication) has pointed out that clear may appear in the syntactic frame [NP V NP onto NP].



Chapter 7.  Types of verb meaning and alternation 

(47) John cleared the dishes onto the counter. (p.c. Keith Sanders)

This does not mean that clear can enter into the load-type alternation, of course. The with variant corresponding to (47) is not possible. (48) *John cleared the counter with the dishes.

Thus the availability of (47) in itself in no way falsifies the claim that different types of alternation are to be characterized by different semantics.5 Still, a natural question that arises is why clear may be accompanied by a Goal PP as in (47) in the first place. The answer is again to be sought in the type of lexical encoding. Crucially, clear is analyzable as a deadjectival verb related to the adjective clear (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991). Accordingly, just as denominal verbs can be analyzed as “constant-insertion” type of verbs, so can the verb clear. Thus clear as a deadjectival verb can be characterized as describing “an event/ state that saliently involves clear,’’ parallel to denominal verbs, which are analyzed as expressing “an event/state that saliently involves N.” But when it comes to how this general, schematic characterization gives rise to more concrete manifestations of verb meaning, deadjectival verbs are not completely parallel to denominal verbs. While a nominal entity may potentially bear a number of relations to the event/state in which it figures (e.g., as an agent, as an instrument, as a locatum, as a location, etc.), a state does not enjoy that much variety. If anything, only two possibilities are conceivable: One is “to become clear,” and the other is the causative “to cause something to become clear.” Now note that (47), besides (41a) and (41b), instantiates the causative meaning “to cause something to become clear,” although the event described in (47) is not exactly the same as that in (41). The availability of (47), along with (41a) and (41b), is therefore accounted for in a manner entirely parallel to other cases of the “constant-insertion” type: the verb clear, being deadjectival, may assume the syntax in (47) because the constant “clear” can be plausibly integrated into a composed scene.

[A clear] composed scene 1 clear dishes from the table

clear the table of dishes

Figure 14.  Three variants of clear.

composed scene 2 clear the dishes onto the counter

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

7.3  Lexical template approach We have seen in Chapter 6 that both Pinker’s (1989) and Goldberg’s (1995) accounts may be plausible for “scene-encoding” types but not for “constant-insertion” types. It goes without saying, therefore, that the two theories also have difficulty with handling the types of alternation seen in the last section. This does not mean that the existence of the “constant-insertion” type has never been recognized in the literature, however. As an attentive reader may have already realized, the lexical-template approach by Levin and her associates is targeted at exactly this type of phenomenon (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995, 1998, 2005; Rapoport 1999; Rappaport Hovav & Levin 1998, 2001). The lexical-template approach assumes that event structures consist of primitive predicates like CAUSE or ACT and idiosyncratic elements of a verb’s meaning. Thus Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998) posit a small number of aspectually based lexical-semantic templates as in (49), and argue that event structures are obtained by having the “verbal constant” either fill an argument position of a predicate or serve as a modifier, in the manner in (50)–(55). (49) a. b. c. d. e. 

[x ACT <MANNER>] (activity) [x <STATE>] (state) [BECOME [x ACT <MANNER>]] (achievement) [[x ACT <MANNER>] CAUSE [BECOME [y <STATE>] ]] (accomplishment) [CAUSE [BECOME [y <STATE>]]] (accomplishment) (Rappaport Hovav & Levin 1998: 108)

(50) manner → [x ACT <MANNER>] (e.g., jog, run, creak, whistle, …) (51) instrument → [x ACT ] (e.g., brush, hammer, saw, shovel, …) (52) placeable object → [x CAUSE [BECOME [y WITH ]]] (e.g., butter, oil, paper, tile, wax, …) (53) place → [x CAUSE [BECOME [y ]]] (e.g., bag, box, cage, crate, garage, pocket,…) (54) internally caused state → [x <STATE>] (e.g., bloom, blossom, decay, flower, rot, rust, sprout,…) (55) externally caused state → [[x ACT] CAUSE [BECOME [y <STATE>]]] (e.g., break, dry, harden, melt, open,…) (Rappaport Hovav & Levin 1998: 109)

What motivated Levin and her associates to adopt this lexical-template approach is the existence of “variable behavior” verbs. Thus the verb roll, under one interpretation, does not allow for resultatives and the way-construction.



Chapter 7.  Types of verb meaning and alternation 

(56) a. *The curtain rolled itself open. b. *During the spring thaw, the boulders rolled the hillside bare. c. *Because it was repeatedly opened and closed, the door rolled the groove in the floor smooth. d. *The pebbles rolled their way into the stream.  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 209)

Yet the same verb appears in the resultative and way constructions under a different interpretation. (57) a. The children rolled the grass flat. b. The children rolled their way across the field. (Ibid.: 210)

The two senses of roll are rather hard to handle by a lexical rule approach, which Levin and her colleagues once cherished (Rappaport & Levin 1988; Levin & ­Rappaport Hovav 1991). Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) concede this point, and turn to an alternative, i.e., a lexical-template approach. Therefore, in formulating an account of the variable behavior of verbs like roll, there is no need to posit a lexical rule that will map the members of one semantically coherent verb class onto another ...  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 211)

From my viewpoint, it is quite natural that the variants of roll cannot be plausibly related to each other the way the variants of load are. After all, roll is clearly of the “constant-insertion” type. In this sense, the lexical-template approach can be said to be designed to handle the “constant-insertion” type, at least in principle. One thing which Levin and her associates seem to overlook, however, is the fact that their lexical-template approach may be plausible for the “constant-insertion” type, but not for the “scene-encoding” type. This is quite evident in their attempt to apply the lexical-template approach even to cases of the “scene-encoding” type. Thus while Rappaport & Levin (1988) advance the lexical semantic representations in (58) in an attempt to relate the two variants by way of a means relation, Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1998) switch to the representations in (59), where the relatedness between the two variants is ensured by the constant LOAD as a manner modifier, not by BY MEANS OF. (58) a. LOAD: [x cause [y to come to be at z]/LOAD] b. LOAD: [[x cause [z to come to be in STATE]]] BY MEANS OF [x cause [y to come to be at z]]/LOAD] (Rappaport & Levin 1988: 26–27) (59) a. [[x ACT] CAUSE [y BECOME Ploc z] [LOAD]MANNER] b. [[x ACT] CAUSE [z BECOME [ ]STATE WITH-RESPECT-TO y] [LOAD]MANNER]]  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1998: 261)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

While relating the two variants via BY MEANS OF in (58) is not without ­problems, it is a fact that there is some plausibility to a means paraphrase (Iwata 1998, 2005a). This is because the two variants of load virtually arise from alternate construals of basically the same scene, which in turn is a natural consequence of load belonging to the “scene-encoding” type. By contrast, the representations in (59) amount to saying that the two variants of load are related to each other in the same way that multiple variants of roll are related to each other. Accordingly, it is not even remotely possible to capture the intuition that the two variants of load are far more closely related than the variants of roll are. Nor does this analysis capture the fact that load lexically encodes the sense of change of location and that of filling a container, for the verb meaning of load serves only as a manner modifier in (59). But apart from the sense of filling and that of a change of location, what would such a manner of load be? All these problems arise precisely because Levin and her associates fail to distinguish between the two types of lexical encoding: “scene-encoding” type and “constant-insertion” type. 7.4  Summary Alternation phenomena are not limited to the case in which a single verb appears in two different syntactic frames. Nor are the multiple variants necessarily relatable by means of a means paraphrase. In order to deal with the various types of alternation, which have been little recognized in previous studies on the locative alternation, a far more detailed analysis of verb meanings is called for.

chapter 8

Further issues 8.0  Introduction I have so far shown that my analysis can overcome a number of problems raised in Chapter 2 against Pinker (1989) and Goldberg (1995, 2006). Yet there are still considerations that do not necessarily pertain to grammatical description and which might be used to counter my proposed analysis. In this chapter I will address several of them. 8.1  Issues of acquisition 8.1.1  Pinker (1989) Pinker (1989) proposes his theory of argument structure alternations in an attempt to explain how children come to acquire argument structures. So Pinker might still maintain that his theory is superior to mine on the point of language acquisition, but my theory cannot. While the present study is not mainly concerned with the issue of acquisition, a brief statement of how I regard it should be made, in order to quell any possible criticism in this vein. As already seen in Chapter 1, Pinker claims that the locative alternation arises from the change in verb meaning effected via a lexical rule. The putative newly created verb, which is semantically different from the base verb, is related to a syntactic frame different from that of the base verb. (Figure 1) This model crucially entails an asymmetry between the two variants. ­Accordingly, Pinker’s theory predicts that children first acquire one variant, and then the other. This aspect of Pinker’s theory has already been under severe attack. Thus Bowerman (1990) points out that the acquisition facts reported on do not match Pinker’s innate linking rules hypothesis: Put and cover emerge within weeks of each other. Pinker (1989) responds by saying that when children are observed to use these variants at an early stage, the putative innate linking rules are not ready yet.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach Semantic structure #1 linking rules Argument structure #1

Semantic structure #2 linking rules Argument structure #2

Figure 1.  The lexical rule approach in Pinker (1989).

Thus there is at least a possibility that some of these very early uses may reflect not the lexicosemantic structures and argument structures that theories of linking rules apply to, but some kind of preliminary, relatively unanalyzed placeholder for a word that is given a more abstract and structured semantic representation only later. (Pinker 1989: 286)

But this is tantamount to admitting that his linking rules really do not facilitate language acquisition. As Bowerman argues, by the time the putative linking rules come into play, children will have already acquired most of the verbal argument structures. But then, why go to the trouble of using the “innate” linking rules in the first place? If children must wait to apply their linking rules until they have come to a more complete analysis of the meanings of the relevant verbs, there is little need for them: Phrase structure has already been acquired, and so has the correct syntactic handling of most of the basic verbs! (Bowerman 1990: 1277)

It seems to me that this line of attack by Bowerman (1990) and Tomasello (2003) is already sufficient to demonstrate that Pinker’s theory of argument structure alternations cannot be upheld for the simple reason that it provides a model for language acquisition. After all, if the very facts of language acquisition contradict his basic approach, then the implications for his underlying theory of argument structure alternations are also rendered dubious. But I can point out still another serious problem. As can be easily seen in Figure 1, the lexical verb and the syntactic frame are dissociated in Pinker’s theory. Thus all children have to do is to learn the meaning of an individual verb. They do not have to worry about which syntactic frame the verb can occur in, for the linking rules are innately given, i.e., before they start to learn individual verbs. But notice that according to this view, children supposedly learn the meaning of an individual verb quite independently of the syntactic frame it is found in. This would be most plausible if input consisted of one-word utterances like “Spray!” alone. But of course this is absurd. The actual fact is that children hear utterances like “He sprayed paint onto the wall”, where the verb is accompanied by a particular syntactic frame.



Chapter 8.  Further issues 

Given that children’s input contains such phrasal expressions, rather than lexical verbs alone, what would be the next plausible scenario according to Pinker’s view? Conceivably, when children hear these phrasal expressions, they first dissociate the verb from the syntactic frame it occurs in and learn only the verb meaning. That is, either children recognize the syntactic frame but dare not store it in long-term memory, or they are somehow blind to the syntactic frame (thanks to some “innate” mechanism). Children would then “learn” which syntactic frame it can occur in only after the “innate” linking rules confirm that a given frame is the correct one for it. It goes without saying that this scenario is no less absurd than the previous one. Children do produce phrase-level utterances, which are predominantly modeled on the utterances they have previously heard (Tomasello 2003; Dabrowska 2004, among others). In other words, children do store the whole string in long-term memory. There is no reason to suppose that children learn the verb meaning quite independently of the syntactic frame. In this sense, Pinker’s theory assumes a very unrealistic model of language acquisition. 8.1.2  Tomasello (1992, 2003) As has been repeatedly stated, I am assuming a usage-based view of constructions. It is only natural, therefore, that I fully concur with Michael Tomasello’s view of language acquisition. Very briefly, Tomasello (2003) argues that no Universal Grammar in the sense of the generative tradition is necessary to account for facts concerning language acquisition. Rather, two sets of skills are particularly important for language acquisition (Tomasello 2003: 3–4): intention-reading and pattern-finding. They comprise the following abilities. 1. intention-reading a. the ability to share attention with other persons to objects and events of mutual interest b. the ability to follow the attention and gesturing of other persons to distal objects and events outside the immediate interaction c. the ability to actively direct the attention of others to distal objects by pointing, etc d. the ability to culturally learn the intentional actions of others 2. pattern-finding a. the ability to form perceptual and conceptual categories of “similar” objects and events b. the ability to form sensory-motor schemas from recurrent patterns of perception and action

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach



c. the ability to perform statistically based distributional analyses on various kinds of perceptual and behavioral sequences d. the ability to create analogies across two or more complex wholes

According to Tomasello (2003: 139), children’s use of syntactic symbols proceeds along the following developmental stages, which is indicative of the second, pattern-finding skill. First are holophrases (i.e., one-word utterances like “Rockin,” “Phone,” or “Play–Play”), in which children use a single linguistic symbol to express their communicative intentions about an entire experiential scene. Second are pivot schemas and other word combinations in which children use multiple words (More ____, ____ gone) to express their communicative intentions (at around 18 months). No syntactic symbols are involved up until this stage. At the third stage (2 years), however, item-based constructions appear, in which children use syntactic marking such as word order or grammatical morphology to indicate explicitly some participant roles in scenes. Significantly, the syntactic marking in item-based constructions is verb­specific, depending upon how a child has heard a particular verb being used. That is, children acquire verbs first in a single argument structure construction, and then learn to apply that verb to other constructions. Tomasello refers to this phenomenon with the label “Verb Island Hypothesis”, since each verb seems like its own island of organization in an otherwise unorganized language system. Thus, during exactly the same developmental period some verbs were used in only one type of construction and that construction was quite simple (Cut ___), whereas other verbs were used in more complex frames of several different types (Draw ____, Draw ___ on ___, Draw ___ for ___, ___ draw on ___).  (Tomasello 2003: 117)

In other words, when a child is observed to produce an utterance in which the verb draw is used in the transitive frame accompanied by a PP, this simply indicates that the child has acquired this construction only for draw alone. It is quite possible that the child still has not learned that there are other verbs that can also appear in this frame in the adult grammar. When children who are themselves producing many transitive utterances are taught a new verb in any one of many different constructions, they mostly cannot transfer their knowledge of word order from their existing item-based constructions to this new item until after their third birthdays. (Tomasello 2003: 119)

It is not until the next, fourth stage when children’s use of grammatical symbols becomes verb-general. At this stage, abstract constructions are arrived at by generalizing over a significantly large number of verb-specific constructions.



Chapter 8.  Further issues 

Now children can express their communicative intentions through utterances that indicate relatively abstract and adult-like linguistic constructions. Thus language acquisition proceeds in a way exactly consonant with the usage-based conception of constructions at varying degrees of abstraction. Children first acquire a verb-specific construction, and then extend it to other verbs. Eventually, a certain number of verbs are known to occur in that construction, leading to the verb-class-specific construction. After a certain amount of verbclass-specific constructions are acquired, a still higher-level construction may be obtained.1 To sum up, then, the mere fact that Pinker presents his theory of argument structure alternations as a model of language acquisition in no way entails that it is psychologically real. Actually, when compared with Tomasello’s acquisition model, Pinker’s theory turns out to be quite problematic. 2,3 8.2  Comparison with Goldberg (1995, 2006) 8.2.1  Main differences Let us now turn to comparison of my proposed theory with Goldberg’s (1995, 2006). As already noted in Chapter 3, my account shares with Goldberg’s the commitment to the constructional view. As should be obvious by now, however, the two theories crucially differ in three major points. In Goldberg’s theory, (1) relevant constructions are higher-level, abstract constructions; (2) the verb meaning is represented as a set of participant roles; (3) accordingly, the interaction between verbs and constructions is captured by nothing more than matching role labels. By contrast, in my proposed lexical-constructional account, (1) relevant constructions are lower-level ones, such as verb-class-specific constructions and verbspecific constructions; (2) the verb meaning is not reducible to a set of semantic roles. Besides the obvious fact that the subtlety and richness of the verb meaning cannot be wholly captured by semantic roles alone, the fact that verb meanings are divided into two types according to whether they may be easily related to scenes or not (“scene-encoding” type vs. “constant-insertion” type, discussed in Chapters 6 and 7) convincingly demonstrates that verb meanings cannot be uniformly represented in terms of a set of semantic roles alone; (3) the interaction between verbs and constructions should be viewed in a rather different way than in Goldberg’s theory: It is not strictly correct to ask whether a given verb, say spray, is semantically compatible with a construction or not. Rather, it is whether or not the full expression He sprayed the wall with paint is semantically compatible with a construction.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

8.2.2  Compatibility between verbs and constructions All three of the above differences should be obvious by now, but for the purpose of clarity let me further point out that a number of case studies carried out so far serve to confirm the third point. Specifically, whether a verb may occur in a particular construction or not cannot be reduced to a matter of whether the verb’s participant roles are compatible with the construction’s argument roles or not. On the one hand, there are cases where the possibility of alternation is greatly influenced by other elements in the sentence. Thus with spread and wind the ­location-as-object variant is sometimes possible and sometimes not. (1) a. *He spread the sleeping child with a blanket. b. He spread the bread with butter. (2) a. *?He wound the pin with the wire. b. He wound his arm with a bandage.

Whether each of these verbs can occur in the location-as-object frame or not is not a matter of its participant roles being compatible or incompatible with the semantic roles of the construction; after all, the participant roles remain the same. Rather, it is a matter of whether the event described by the full expression instantiates the constructional meaning (i.e., the ‘‘cover’’ semantics). On the other hand, there are cases where the alternation is marginal. We have seen in Chapter 5 that clutter and bind are actually found in the locatum-as-object frame, but that these occurrences ought to be regarded as very marginal cases. Again, the only way available in Goldberg’s theory to accommodate these occurrences is to say that the participant roles are compatible with the argument roles of the relevant construction. But clearly, whether these verbs can appear in the locatum-as-object frame or not is not a matter of the participant roles being compatible or incompatible with the semantic roles of the construction; rather, what counts is that these verbs may be taken to be similar to scatter and tie, respectively. Such cases of analogical extension cannot be accommodated simply by means of higher-level, abstract constructions together with lists of semantic roles. 8.2.3  Lower-level constructions vs. higher-level constructions Now an anonymous reviewer comments that while my verb-class-specific constructions will certainly allow us to describe the observed behavior of alternating or non-alternating verbs, it remains unclear how to verify that these verb­class-specific constructions are psychologically real. This reviewer goes on to claim that Goldberg (1995) presents independent evidence for the constructions that she posits. Thus a nonce-word in a ditransitive syntactic frame as in (3) is understood as a verb of transfer.





Chapter 8.  Further issues 

(3) She topamased him something.

(Goldberg 1995: 35)

This reviewer maintains that “when Goldberg argues for constructional meaning, she provides evidence in the form of coercion effects.” This statement obviously has a generic flavor, implying that Goldberg always provides evidence in the form of coercion effects in positing a construction. According to this reviewer, then, Goldberg’s higher-level constructions have already been amply demonstrated to be psychologically real, while my lower-level constructions have not. Let us examine this issue in what follows. 8.2.3.1  Coercion effects? While these objections might sound plausible to some people, a careful ­examination suggests that considerations along these lines do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Goldberg successfully demonstrates the existence of her higher-level constructions, contrary to this reviewer’s assertion. First, notice that coercion effects are not a necessary feature of constructions. As seen in 3.1, overriding effects are observed only with one type of construction (“shift construction” in the terms of Michaelis (2003, 2004)). So coercion effects can be used as a diagnostic only for limited cases. In fact, coercion effects are not used as a necessary condition to posit a construction even in Goldberg’s actual practice. (3) is the only example of coercion effects in Goldberg (1995) that is intended to establish the necessity of positing a construction. No comparable data are presented in positing other constructions throughout the 1995 book. This is more clearly seen in Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004). As pointed out in 3.1, Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004) explicitly state that fully compositional expressions may count as constructions. Construction grammar defines constructions to be any stored pairings of form and function; … In addition, stored (typically highly frequent) regularities between form and meaning are considered constructions even if they are fully (Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004: 533 footnote 1, emphasis mine) compositional.

This is another way of saying that constructions can be posited even when coercion effects are not found. As a matter of fact, such constructions are abundantly found in Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004). Thus in order to accommodate examples like (4), Goldberg & Jackendoff posit the construction in (5). (4) a. Bill followed the thief into the library. b. Bill tracked the leak to its source. c. Bill traced the clues to the haunted house.  (Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004: 552–53)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(5) Syntax: NP1 V NP2 PP3 Semantics: X1 GO-AFTER Y2 Path3 INSTANCE: [VERBAL SUBEVENT] e.g., follow, track, trace  (Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004: 554)

The proposed construction in (5) somehow has the effect of allowing only verbs like follow or track; this construction cannot override verbs like run or find, as exemplified in (6). (6) a. *The dog sniffed the trail into the yard. (=The dog followed the trail into the yard by sniffing it – MEANS) b. *The dog ran the clues into the yard. (=The dog followed the clues into the yard by running – MEANS) c. *The dog found her into the yard. (=The dog went after her into the yard thereby finding her – RESULT)  (Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004: 554)

Obviously, this is a construction without coercion effects. Thus it is not the case that coercion effects are systematically employed to establish the necessity of constructions, contrary to the above-mentioned reviewer. 8.2.3.2  Lower-level constructions come before higher-level constructions But maybe the presence/absence of coercion effects is a side issue. What really matters is whether Goldberg’s higher-level, abstract constructions truly are more psychologically real than lower-level constructions. In addressing this question, let me first repeat the generally held view of the levels of schematicity. Lower-level schemas, expressing regularities of only limited scope, may on balance be more essential to language structure than high-level schemas representing the broadest generalizations. (Langacker 1999: 118)

While higher-level constructions and lower-level constructions serve different purposes, it is lower-level constructions that are more essential to describing actual linguistic phenomena. Now from the developmental perspective as well, lower-level constructions come before higher-level constructions. As just seen in this chapter, children first acquire a verb-specific construction, and then extend it to other verbs. Eventually, a certain number of verbs are known to occur in that construction, leading to the verb-class-specific construction. After a certain amount of verb-class-specific constructions are acquired, a still higher-level construction may be obtained. In other words, higher-level, abstract constructions presuppose lower-level constructions. Besides, higher-level and lower-level constructions are likely to co-exist:



Chapter 8.  Further issues 

When a higher abstraction is made the lower-level, more concrete constructions and expressions do not necessarily go away but may remain available for use – especially if they are used frequently. (Tomasello 2003: 106)

But given that higher-level constructions cannot exist without lower-level constructions, how can one say that higher-level constructions are more psychologically real than lower-level constructions? Goldberg’s apparent motivation for endorsing her higher-level, abstract constructions is found in the following quote: Still, there is ample evidence that generalizations are essential to language. If generalizations were not necessarily made, we would expect to find languages whose argument structure patterns varied arbitrarily on a verb-by-verb basis.  (Goldberg 2006: 58)

But this is a red herring. What is important is not whether generalizations are made or not; to all those committed to a usage-based constructional view, the answer is too obvious. Rather, what is at issue is at what level generalizations are made. Obviously, just because generalizations are essential does not mean that those generalizations are made at a higher-level, as Goldberg claims. Seen from this angle, Goldberg advances no convincing arguments that prove that abstractions are not created locally, on the basis of small numbers of exemplars. On the contrary, in several places Goldberg does concur with this basic view: “Verb-centered categories are categorized together, ultimately resulting in general, abstract argument structure constructions.” (Goldberg 2006: 59) In isolation, this passage may well be taken to support my view that lowerlevel constructions come before higher-level constructions, unless Goldberg holds to an unrealistic view that higher-level constructions can be abstracted from usage events in a single step. Thus all considerations point to the precedence of lower-level constructions over higher-level constructions. 8.2.3.3  Evidence for what? Note further that while Goldberg (1995, 2006) purports to present a number of arguments in support of her theory, those arguments do not necessarily argue for the existence of higher-level constructions. Thus let us return to the coercion effects mentioned above.

(7) She topamased him something.

(Goldberg 1995: 35)

It is true that the coercion effect observed can be used as evidence for the existence of constructions. Notice, however, that nothing precludes the conclusion

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

that the observed effect is due to a lower-level construction, rather than a higherlevel construction. Furthermore, note that while the verb in (7) is likely to be taken to mean “give,” the verb shin in (8) is likely to be construed as “kick” or “pass.”

(8) Elmer shinned me the ball during soccer practice.

(Marantz 1984: 177)

If the construction responsible for these coercion effects is really a higher-level construction with the simple semantics “X causes Y to receive Z,” as Goldberg claims, this invites the question of why these particular verb meanings are chosen, and not some other ones (allow, grant, get, promise, etc.), which should be no less available for the ditransitive construction. A conceivable reply would be that give and pass are members of the central sense of the family of ditransitive construction. But this is tantamount to admitting that what is responsible for the observed coercion effects is a verb-class-­specific construction, rather than the higher-level construction, in the hierarchy of ditransitive constructions. After all, the six sub-constructions which are claimed to form a polysemous category (Goldberg 1995: 36–39) are nothing other than verbclass-specific constructions. ditransitive construction Syn: [NP V NP NP] Sem: “X causes Y to receive Z.” promise-class

give-class

allow-class

Syn: [NP V NP NP]

Syn: [NP V NP NP]

Syn: [NP V NP NP]

Sem: “………….”

Sem: “………….”

Sem: “………….”

=> verb-class-specific construction

Syn: [NP throw NP NP] Syn: [NP give NP NP]

Syn: [NP pass NP NP]

Sem: “……………”

Sem: “……………”

Sem: “…………”

=> verb-specific construction

Figure 2.  The hierarchy of ditransitive constructions.

All these considerations indicate, therefore, that the observed coercion effects should be taken to argue for the existence of lower-level constructions rather than that of higher-level constructions, contrary to this reviewer. It is not difficult to see that similar things can be said of other arguments presented by Goldberg. Interested readers are advised to see whether this re-interpretation is feasible or not by looking at the arguments in Goldberg (1995, 2006).



Chapter 8.  Further issues 

As noted above, Goldberg advances no convincing arguments to demonstrate that it is higher-level constructions, rather than lower-level constructions, that are at play. Thus Part II of Goldberg (2006), entitled “Learning Generalization,” is intend­ed to strengthen her theoretical foundation by drawing on a number of experiments. What is actually discussed in this part, however, is (1) that children’s generalizations about constructions are focused around particular verbs (Chapter 4); (2) preempting (Chapter 5); and (3) that constructions are more predictive of sentence meaning than verbs (Chapter 6). Clearly, all these arguments can be taken to be arguments for lower-level constructions with equal force. If anything, some of the arguments may well be taken to argue in favor of lower-level constructions rather than higher-level constructions. To recapitulate, the arguments advanced by Goldberg can be easily reinterpreted as evidence for lower-level constructions. And Goldberg advances no arguments to show that this is not the case. 8.2.4  How “usage-based” is Goldberg’s theory? Thus if one strictly follows the reasoning of a usage-based view, lower-level constructions are more important than higher-level constructions not only for the purpose of linguistic description but also for the reason of acquisition. And it is not likely that Goldberg can come up with telling arguments that demonstrate otherwise. But given that insisting on higher-level constructions alone to the exclusion of lower-level constructions is at odds with a usage-based view, one may well wonder why Goldberg is engaging in such an inconsistent practice. Evidently, this is because she believes in a parsimony thesis. As is now well-known, what is ground-breaking about Goldberg (1995) is her claim that systematic differences in meaning which a single verb exhibits are to be attributed to constructions rather than to verbs. Instead of positing an additional sense of slide and a stipulation that this sense can only occur in the ditransitive construction, we can attribute the constraint that the goal must be animate directly to the construction. (Goldberg 1995: 13)

Crucially, one of her arguments for the proposed constructional account comes from consideration of parsimony. More generally, I concur with Levin that the semantics of (and constraints on) the full expressions are different whenever a verb occurs in a different construction. But these differences need not be attributed to different verb senses; they are more parsimoniously attributed to the constructions themselves.  (Goldberg 1995: 13, emphasis mine)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

While the parsimony consideration has been held as a decree in the generative tradition, note that the parsimony thesis concerns the elegance in theory construction. It is not strictly compatible with the basic tenet of the usage-based view, which holds that the full expressions are first memorized, and patterns (=constructions) are then extracted from them. Even though it may appear to be inelegant from the viewpoint of theory construction, it is a fact that natural language is highly redundant. Apparently, Goldberg seems to think that a parsimony consideration contributes to constructing a psychologically plausible theory.4 Instead of learning a myriad of unrelated constructions, speakers do well to learn a smaller inventory of patterns in order to facilitate online production.  (Goldberg 2006: 126)

But things are not that simple. As Croft (2003) convincingly argues, the issue of parsimony is not to be viewed from a single angle. Moreover, Goldberg agued for only one sort of parsimony, storage parsimony. … Storage parsimony has long been the sine qua non of generative (and structuralist) analyses of grammar. But one could argue for computing parsimony instead: minimizing the computation involved in language use. Computation cannot be eliminated, of course; but nor can storage of knowledge in the storage parsimony approach. (Croft 2003: 61)

A very similar observation is found in Dabrowska (2004), who highlights a tension between storage and computation. However, there is a trade-off between storage and computation: a set of general, highly compact rules does not require a large storage capacity, but poses severe demands on the processing system; and conversely, the retrieval of prefabricated chunks is computationally less demanding, but requires a large and efficient memory. (Dabrowska 2004: 26)

Dabrowska goes on to suggest that computational parsimony seems to come before storage parsimony. However, it is doubtful that the principle of economy is an appropriate standard by which to evaluate linguistic theories, if these are intended to be psychologically realistic. Human brains are relatively slow processors, but have enormous storage capacity. From a psychological point of view, therefore, retrieval from memory is the (Dabrowska 2004: 27, emphasis mine) preferred strategy.

Contrary to Goldberg, therefore, speakers are likely to do well to learn a larger inventory of patterns “in order to facilitate online production.” At the same time, attentive readers may have noticed a very curious thing. Dabrowska’s arguments are intended to be directed against generativists, but these arguments can be directed, unchanged, against Goldberg’s practice with equal



Chapter 8.  Further issues 

force. But why can such a thing be said about a scholar who is regarded by everyone as a prominent figure in both constructional and cognitive approaches? The answer is unequivocal: Despite the fact that she identifies herself as a practitioner of a usage-based theory, Goldberg shares with generativists certain assumptions when it comes to theory construction.5 I conclude this section by noting that I am not alone in pointing this out: It (=Goldberg’s strategy) reflects certain ghosts from our theoretical past, ghosts which we might have thought to be exorcised from cognitive linguistics… One is the notion that the shortest grammar is necessarily the best grammar. Another is the minimalist lexical semantics, with the expectation of monosemy and the possibility of circumscribing linguistic meanings. Yet another is the assumption that particular aspects of meaning are exclusively assignable to particular elements, which in turn suggests – quite erroneously – that meanings are non-overlapping (an entailment of the building-block metaphor). (Langacker 2005b: 151)

8.3  Summary This chapter has addressed a number of “larger” considerations that may be relevant in comparing my theory with Pinker’s and Goldberg’s. Both Pinker’s theory and Goldberg’s may appear to be farther reaching than my proposed lexicalconstructional account, which is obviously more focused on producing a better grammatical description of the locative alternation. But just because their theories claim to constitute a model of acquisition or to be experimentally supported does not necessarily indicate that their theories are superior to my account. On the contrary, a closer examination reveals otherwise. Pinker’s model of acquisition is not compatible with actually reported data. Rather, Tomasello’s usage-based theory of acquisition, with which my lexicalconstructional account fully concurs, is far more plausible. As for Goldberg’s theory, her insistence on higher-level constructions to the neglect of lower-level constructions is logically incompatible with the usage-based view. Her putative arguments for the existence of higher-level constructions may just as well be taken to count as arguments for the existence of lower-level constructions instead, and Goldberg advances no convincing arguments that this is not the case. Consequently, even these “larger” considerations turn out to argue in favor of the present account, after all.

chapter 9

The locative alternation with verbs of removal 9.0  Introduction It is well-known in the literature (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985; Pinker 1989; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991; among others) that certain verbs of removal exhibit an alternation very similar to that of spray/load verbs. (1) a. Doug cleared dishes from the table. b. Doug cleared the table of dishes.

(from variant) (of variant)

For convenience sake, let us refer to the two variants the from variant and the of variant, respectively. This type of alternation is not much discussed in Pinker (1989) or in Goldberg (1995). Rather, a detailed analysis is found in Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1991). So the discussion in this chapter begins by briefly summarizing Levin & Rappaport Hovav’s analysis. 9.1  Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1991) 9.1.1  Lexical extension analysis Levin & Rappaport Hovav’s analysis of the alternation involving verbs of removal is essentially the same as Rappaport & Levin’s (1988) analysis of the locative alternation of spray/load verbs, in that one variant is claimed to be the basic form, from which the other variant is lexically derived. Thus, Rappaport & Levin (1988) posit the semantic structures in (2), where (2a) is for a locatum-as-object variant and (2b) for a location-as-object variant. (2) 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] (Rappaport & Levin 1988: 26)

Crucially, (2a) is embedded under BY MEANS OF in (2b), meaning that a change of state is brought about by means of a change of location. In other words, a

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

location-as-object variant is an extension of a locatum-as-object variant, the main clause of (2a) becoming a subordinate clause in (2b). Now Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1991) extend a lexical extension analysis to the alternation involving verbs of removal. A question that immediately arises in implementing this lexical extension analysis is which variant is the basic one. Levin & Rappaport Hovav argue that the of variant is basic, in view of the following considerations. First, they observe that the clear verbs are deadjectival. Thus the adjectives that these verbs are derived from name the state that results from the action denoted by the clear verbs: If someone clears a road, then the result is that the road is clear; if someone empties a drawer, then the result is that the drawer is empty. (3) a. clear the road; the road is clear. b. empty the drawer; an empty drawer.  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991: 130)

Second, they point out that the verbs clear and empty can undergo the causative/ inchoative alternation. (4) a. The strong winds cleared the skies. b. The skies cleared. (5) a. Martha emptied the tub. b. The tub emptied.

(Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991: 133)

Levin & Rappaport Hovav claim that this alternation is characteristic of most verbs of change of state. Thus the clear verbs are basically change of state verbs. Therefore, it is natural that the location argument is expressed as a direct object, for an argument that denotes an entity undergoing a change of state generally appears as a direct object. It follows, therefore, that change of state clear, as appears in the of variant, is basic. Levin & Rappaport Hovav go on to propose that the two variants are related via the relation “by means of.” We might propose that removal clear means something like “remove by means of (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991: 140) change of state clear”.

Consequently, it is claimed that the from variant, characterized as remove clear, is derived from the of variant, characterized as change of state clear:

(6) clear (change of state) → clear (remove)

9.1.2  The fundamental problem Levin & Rappaport Hovav’s lexical extension analysis has a fatal flaw, in that the proposed extension entails a factually incorrect relationship between change of



Chapter 9.  The locative alternation with verbs of removal 

state and removal. Specifically, note that Doug cleared dishes from the table conveys that Doug removed the dish from the table, and as a result the table became clear, not that Doug first made the table clear, thereby removing the dish from it (i.e., removal by means of change of state), as entailed by Levin & Rappaport Hovav’s analysis. Thus when applied to the alternation involving verbs of removal, the lexical extension analysis does not manifest the same degree of plausibility as it does when applied to the alternation of spray/load verbs. Why? This is because the putative derivation sounds plausible only in the same direction as the temporal unfolding of the event. Thus with spray/load verbs, to say “a change of state is brought about by means of a change of location” sounds fine, because a means relation is compatible with the fact that a change of location precedes a change of state both temporally and causally. As a matter of fact, Levin & Rappaport Hovav seem to be aware that their proposed characterization does not do justice to actual linguistic facts: It is likely that the subordinating function “by means of ” is not quite appropriate here, and that the list of subordinating functions needs to be expanded.  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991: 140, footnote 13)

As far as I know, no such list has been provided up to now, though.

9.2  Analysis 9.2.1  The differences between the two types of alternation In analyzing the alternation involving verbs of removal, one may well expect that this type of alternation can be approached in essentially the same way as the alternation involving spray/load verbs. But we must first note that there are a couple of differences between the two types of alternation. First, while more than forty spray/load verbs have been reported in the literature (Pinker 1989; Levin 1993), the number of verbs participating in this type of alternation is very small: as far as I know, only four verbs (i.e., clear, drain, empty, and strip) can be safely regarded as entering into this type of alternation. That the alternation is “stable” for these four verbs can be confirmed by manually counting the actual instances of the two variants from the BNC data. (Table 1) Second, the distribution of the two variants of the removal type does not exactly parallel that of the two variants of the spray/load type. Levin (1993) gives a list of both the verb classes that exhibit the from variant alone, as in (7), and those that exhibit the of variant alone, as in (9).

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Table 1.  The BNC counts of the two variants of the four alternating verbs clear

Locatum-as-object

Location-as-object

132 (from)

108 (of)

15 (out of) empty

11 (from)

35 (of)

8 (out of) drain

18 (from)

strip

75 (from)

11 (of)

4 (out of) 153 (of)

1 (out of)

(7) a. REMOVE Verbs: discharge, dislodge, draw, eliminate, expel, extract, remove, separate, sever, withdraw b. BANISH Verbs: banish, deport, evacuate, expel, extradite, recall c. STEAL Verbs: abduct, confiscate, exorcise, extort, kidnap, pinch, plagiarize, steal

(8) a. The thief stole the painting from the museum. b. *The thief stole the museum of the painting.

(9) CHEAT Verbs: acquit, cheat, cleanse, cure, deplete, deprive, disarm, divest, free, purge, relieve, rid, rob

(10) a. *The doctor cured pneumonia from Pat. b. The doctor cured Pat of pneumonia. (Levin 1993: 52)

Significantly, while there are spatial verbs that exhibit the from variant alone (i.e., REMOVE verbs), comparable spatial verbs that exhibit the of variant alone are hard to come by. No such verbs have been reported so far, either in Pinker (1989) or in Levin (1993). 9.2.2  A lexical-constructional view With these differences in mind, let us turn to the analysis of the alternation involving clear. The basic view of the alternation in my theory is applicable here as well: That the verb clear alternates between the two syntactic frames means that the two variants are sanctioned by two verb-class-specific constructions. Quite probably, the from variant in (11b) is sanctioned by the same verb-class-specific construction that (11a) instantiates, as in Figure 1. (11) a. She removed the dishes from the table. b. He cleared the dishes from the table.

On the other hand, the of variant in (12b) is sanctioned by the same verb-classspecific construction that (12a) instantiates, as in Figure 2.



Chapter 9.  The locative alternation with verbs of removal 

Syn: [NPX V NPY directional PPZ] Sem:

“X moves Y from Y”

Syn: [NPX remove NPY dir-PPZ]

Syn: [NPX clear NPY dir-PPZ]

Sem:

Sem:

“……………..”

“……………..”

Syn: [She removed the dishes from the table]

Syn: [He cleared the dishes from the table]

Sem:

Sem:

“……………..”

“…………………..”

Figure 1.  How the from variant of clear is sanctioned. Syn:

[NPX V NPY ]

Sem: “X causes Y not to have something” Syn: [NPX cure NPY]

Syn: [NPX clear NPY]

Sem: “……………..”

Sem: “……………..”

Syn: [The doctor cured Pat of pneumonia]

Syn: [He cleared the table of dishes]

Sem:

Sem:

“……………..”

“…………………..”

Figure 2.  How the of variant of clear is sanctioned.

(12) a. The doctor cured Pat of pneumonia. b. He cleared the table of dishes.

It might appear that the of phrase is part of the relevant argument structure construction. However, considering that the same of-PP is observable even apart from the of variant as in (13), this of phrase is probably better treated as an adjunct, like the with phrase of the location-as-object variant of spray/load verbs. (13) a. clear of snow, clean of bugs, empty of water b. bare of furniture, bereft of friends, devoid of content, free of debts  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991: 141)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

So far the account of clear proceeds exactly like that of spray/load. There is one big difference between the two cases, though: unlike spray/load verbs, clear is a deadjectival, change of state verb (“to cause to become clear”), as Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1991) point out. It is thus quite understandable that a location appears in the direct object position. After all, it is the table that becomes clear. But an important question that arises is why does clear allow a from variant as well, despite the fact that what becomes clear is the table, not the dishes? Such a puzzling effect can be appreciated by noting that change of state verbs generally do not alternate.1 (14) a. *They adorned ribbons onto the gift. b. They adorned the gift with ribbons. (15) a. *She bound rope {onto/around} him. b. She bound him with rope. (16) a. *He filled wine into the glass. b. He filled the glass with wine.

Thus it seems rather surprising that clear should alternate, despite the fact that it is a change of state verb.2 9.2.3  The difference between guilt and dishes As a first step toward resolving this apparent puzzle, note that sometimes clear does fail to alternate. Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1991: 143) observe that the alternation is impossible when the verb is used in an abstract sense. (17) a. The judge cleared the accused of guilt. b. *The judge cleared guilt from the accused.  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1991: 143)

So here the verb clear conforms to the general pattern of change of state verbs. This suggests that the true nature of clear as a change of state verb is more transparently seen in (17) than in (1). Accordingly, we should first examine (17a) and (17b), since the acceptability of the from variant in (1a) is more likely to become clear when compared to the unacceptable from variant in (17b). As already noted several times, a given alternant is judged acceptable to the extent that it can be construed as being sanctioned by a relevant verb-class-specific construction. Now the unacceptability of (17b) indicates that it cannot instantiate a relevant construction. To see why, let us begin by considering how the sentence in (17a) is composed. As should be obvious by now, the verb clear is deadjectival, meaning “to cause something not to have something else.” That is, the verb clear is characterized in terms



Chapter 9.  The locative alternation with verbs of removal 

A

B

B

Figure 3.  clear.

guilt him V: clear

him NP: him

PP: of guilt

Figure 4.  clear him of guilt.

of a transition from a state in which something (B) has something else (A) to a state in which something (B) does not have something else (A), as depicted in Figure 3. It is rather straightforward to compose clear him of guilt, starting from this verb meaning. He is suspected of having guilt at first, and as a result of clearing action, the guilt ceases to exist. So him corresponds to the B entity, and guilt to the A entity. (Figure 4) The entity which ceases to exist in the resultant state is expressed by an ofphrase. As shown in such adjectival phrases like clear of snow or empty of water, of denotes a state of lacking something. Thus there is nothing problematic with the of variant in (17a). When we try to compose clear guilt from him from this verb meaning, however, there is a problem. The verb meaning of clear as depicted in Figure 3 makes schematic reference to an entity which ceases to exist in the resultant state, but no reference to a moved entity. In the absence of a moved entity, the clearing scene cannot possibly be identified as a change of location. This is as expected, considering that clear is a change of state verb.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Let us next turn to (1), repeated here as (18). (18) a. Doug cleared dishes from the table. b. Doug cleared the table of dishes.

Again, there should be no problem in composing the of variant in (18b). Significantly, though, we understand that the clearing scene described by (18b) consists in removing the dishes, as depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5.  He cleared the table of dishes.

Strictly, then, the verb clear in (18b) is not identical to the clear in (17a). Where does this difference come from? Note that this is a consequence of different “logics” between spatial and abstract domains when the verb meaning of clear “to cause something not to have something else” is applied to the two different domains. When we cause a person not to have guilt any more, the guilt simply ceases to exist. No one cares what has become of it. It’s just that the guilt is not there. By contrast, when we cause the table not to have dishes any more, the dishes do not vanish into thin air. Rather, they are necessarily moved to some other place. After all, causing something physical not to be there can be achieved

A

B

A

B

Figure 6.  clear in the spatial sense.

only by moving that something to some other place. Consequently, while the act of clearing in the abstract sense in no way entails a movement of such an entity as guilt, the act of clearing in the spatial sense consists in displacing the object(s). Given that the verb clear in the spatial sense may mean “to remove something from something else,” it is no wonder that clear in this sense can alternate. When we construe the dishes as an entity which ceases to exist, we get the of variant, as shown in Figure 7. If, on the other hand, we construe the dishes as a moved entity, we get the from variant, as shown in Figure 8.



Chapter 9.  The locative alternation with verbs of removal  VP: clear the table of dishes

V: clear

NP: the table

PP: of dishes

Figure 7.  clear the table of dishes.

VP: clear dishes from the table

V: clear

NP: dishes

PP: from the table

Figure 8.  clear dishes from the table.

clear A from B

A B clear B of A Figure 9.  clear A from B vs. clear B of A.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Thus the two variants can be understood to arise via alternate construals, as summarized in Figure 9. To sum up, the reason why clear, which is a change of state verb and is therefore predicted not to alternate, nevertheless does alternate is because of the complex interplay between the verb meaning “to cause something not to have something else” and the “logic” of the spatial domain. Incidentally, this finding allows us to account for one respect in which the alternation involving verbs of removal differs from the alternation involving spray/load verbs: As noted at the end of 9.2.1, while there are spatial verbs that exhibit the from variant alone (e.g., remove), comparable spatial verbs that exhibit the of variant alone are hard to come by. From my viewpoint, this is to be expected. Since the two variants are characterized in terms of change of location and “cover”/“fill” semantics, the locative alternation involving spray/load verbs is possible with verbs which are basically change of location verbs, as long as the verb meaning can be elaborated into a cover/fill-type event. By contrast, all four verbs exhibiting the locative alternation of the removal type (clear, drain, empty, and strip) are change of state verbs. This is because when change of state verbs like clear are used in the spatial sense, the change of state predicated is identical to a change of location. Since the change of state verbs necessarily alternate, there should be no verbs that exhibit the of variant alone. 9.3  Further consequences 9.3.1  Abstract entities that can be displaced We have seen that *clear guilt from him is not possible because causing a person to no longer have guilt does not entail that the guilt has been moved to someone else. Strictly speaking, this means that *clear guilt from him is unacceptable not because the verb clear is used in an abstract sense, but because guilt is not conceptualized as a movable entity. If this is right, we can expect that the from variant should be possible even when verbs like clear are used in non-spatial domains, as long as the entity that ceases to exist is conceptualized as a movable entity. This prediction is in fact borne out. Consider the following. (19) a. The monologue came to an end when she reached the office, where she slammed the door, then leaned against it while trying to clear the anger from her mind. b. Mark Hopkins, one of the Du Pont team and an amateur bicycle racer, says that the traditional wire-spoked wheel has two drawbacks that drain energy from the rider: the wheel flexes, and its spokes produce wind resistance. (both from BNC)

These examples are possible precisely because human beings are conceptualized in terms of containers, as amply demonstrated by a case study of anger in Lakoff (1987).



Chapter 9.  The locative alternation with verbs of removal 

9.3.2  Entailed displacement For the reason clarified above, verbs like clear may realize a locatum entity, as well as a location entity, as a direct object, despite the fact that they are change of state verbs. Interestingly enough, there is a third pattern: A location entity appears as a direct object, suggesting the pattern for a change of state, but a directional PP co-occurs. Consider the following: (20) a. … he thought philosophically as he got up, removed the boiling kettle from the gas ring and emptied it into a small china teapot. b. All drainage, which will contain some formaldehyde solution, is drained into closed vessels. (both from BNC)

In (20a) and (20b), the direct object and passive subject entities are clearly location entities, rather than locatum entities. That this is so can be further appreciated by contrasting (20) with (21), where locatum entities appear as direct objects, followed by directional PPs. (21) a. If the bag has developed no leaks, empty the water out of the aquarium into another container. b. Drain the contents of the jar into a bowl and squeeze all moisture from the petals before discarding them. (BNC)

In the literature, the pattern exhibited in (20) has been noted virtually for empty alone (see Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 61 and references cited therein), but it is actually observable with clear as well. Thus in (22) her desk and a shelf are clearly location entities, followed by onto PPs. (22) a. She cleared her desk onto the floor, made coffee and switched on the typewriter. b. We’ll clear one shelf onto the table here, and then we’ll see. (BNC)

Thus in these examples, the appearance of a location entity as a direct object ­suggests the pattern for a change of state, but the ensuing directional PP clearly indicates a change of location of some entity. In other words, change of state and change of location are simultaneously predicated, although the co-­occurrence of change of state and change of location are generally held to be prohibited (Goldberg 1991, 1995). This somewhat peculiar pattern is rather to be expected in my account, however. As argued in 9.2.3, when verbs like clear are used in the spatial sense, a predicated change of state ends up as a change of location. To put it differently, a change of state and a change of location co-exist as two facets of one and the same situation. As a consequence, there is nothing surprising about a change of location and a change of state co-occurring at the same time as in (20) and (22).

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

9.3.3  Cross-domain non-parallels The differentiation between *clear guilt from him and clear dishes from the table crucially rests on the claim that what is unavailable in the non-spatial domain becomes available in the spatial domain. This is tantamount to saying that an inference pattern which is valid in the non-spatial domain is not so in the spatial domain (or vice versa). While parallels across different domains have tended to be emphasized in the literature (Jackendoff 1983; Lakoff 1987, 1990, 1993; among many others), such cross-domain non-parallels are not uncommon (Iwata 1995, 1999). To strengthen my argument, then, let us consider a different case of cross-domain non-parallelism. Consider (23), an example of motion in the spatial domain. (23) John went from Chicago to New York.

From (23), we can infer not only that John is in New York at the termination of the event, but also that he is no longer in Chicago then. This inference pattern is expressed as in (24), where t1 is the initial time and t2 the final time. (24) If X moves from A to B, then a. at t1, X is at A and not at B. b. at t2, X is not at A and at B.

This inference pattern is preserved across non-spatial domains. At the termination of the event, the meeting is no longer on Tuesday in (25a); John is no longer the owner of the inheritance in (25b); the light is no longer red in (25c). (25) a. We moved the meeting from Tuesday to Friday. b. The inheritance went from John to his son. c. The light changed from red to green.

This might appear to be a truism, but Jackendoff (1990) observes that this inference does not hold in the field of information transfer. If Bill transfers information to Harry, (...) we can infer that Harry ends up having the information. But since information, unlike objects, can be in more than one place at a time, Bill still may have the information too. (Jackendoff 1990: 27)

Thus in the spatial domain (and many non-spatial domains as well) an object cannot be in two different places at the same time, while this is not true in the domain of information transfer, whose inference pattern is expressed as in (26): (26) If X (=information) moves from A to B, then a. at t1, X is at A and not at B. b. at t2, X is at A and at B.



Chapter 9.  The locative alternation with verbs of removal 

Thus, just as what is unavailable in the non-spatial domain becomes available in the spatial domain, what is impossible in the spatial domain becomes possible in a non-spatial domain. Seen in this light, the differentiation between the two versions of clear along the proposed lines is quite plausible. 9.4  Rob Lastly, let us turn to the verb rob. In the literature, rob has been regarded as a nonalternating verb (Levin 1993: 52; Goldberg 1995: 45). (27) a. *Jesse robbed a million dollars (from the rich). b. Jesse robbed the rich (of all their money). (Goldberg 1995: 45)

This seems to be due to the requirement of negative affectedness on the robbed person. Goldberg (1995: 46) observes that rob “necessarily entails that the robbed person is seriously negatively affected.” Thus (28b) is not acceptable because only a penny’s loss is unlikely to negatively affect the victim. (28) a. I stole a penny from him. b. *I robbed him of a penny.

On the other hand, (29) is acceptable because the victim is indeed negatively affected. (29) I robbed him of his last penny.

(Goldberg 1995: 46)

Given that the main objective of robbing consists in negatively affecting a person, rather than moving money, it is quite natural that the robbing action cannot be construed as a change of location. However, a reviewer observes that rob does alternate, citing the following sentences. (30) a. The economic elites robbed everything we had from us. b. The economic elites robbed us of everything we had.  (contributed by a reviewer)

Here, a question arises: Should we forget about the requirement of negative affectedness on the robbed person and re-classify rob into the alternating class? Again, it’s not a simple matter of either – or. In order to assess the authenticity of the rob data, I manually counted the occurrences of the two variants of rob in the BNC. The result is summarized in Table 2.3 The figures unambiguously indicate that the from variant is far less common than the of variant, which in turn suggests that rob is only a marginally alternating verb, compared with other alternating verbs seen above (i.e., clear, empty, drain and strip).

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Table 2.  The BNC counts of the two variants of rob. Locatum-as-object rob

7 [+3] (from)

Location-as-object 406 (of)

1 (out of)

Furthermore, closer scrutiny reveals a very interesting fact: None of the seven attested data of rob – from in the BNC is used in the strictly possessional sense. Rather, the meanings vary among the senses “excavate” in (31a) and (31b), “to snatch” in (32a), and “to isolate” in (32b) and (32c). In short, in all these examples rob means to physically remove something from somewhere. (31) a. The nature-god pendant found at Aigina looks very much like Middle Minoan III work, dating from about 1600 BC; it may have been robbed from the Chrysolakkos tomb at Mallia in antiquity. b. … a good deal of gold was robbed from the site before the French archaeologists started excavating it in the 1920s…  (both from BNC) (32) a. Arctic skuas feed their young on the fish which they rob from the terns, and have become so specialised that they have almost lost the capability of catching food for themselves. b. … it is managed with and the initial process of domesticating and training elephants is very cruel indeed. We’re robbing them [=elephants] from the wild, and including Africa with all this nonsense about saving them from culls, … c. I don’t see how I could have managed to go on robbing the customers from inside Swansea Jail … (all from BNC)

This seems to be in accord with my claim above, namely that in the spatial domain causing someone not to have something is the same as removing that something from that someone, thereby contributing to the well-formedness of the from variant. In the remaining two examples, what is robbed is dignity in (33a) and a comfort in (33b). Clearly, the verb rob is not strictly possessional in these examples. (33) a. Clara’s one solace had been the cold, tight dignity of her case, and this had been stolen from her, robbed from her by an elderly woman’s few words of casual humanity. b. They are too old to be worried about the physical changes that have taken place in them, but I also see that they share a certain self-regard, a comfort which – I hazard a speculation – is robbed from old people in our cities. (both from BNC)

Thus the verb rob in its possessional sense does not alternate in the BNC data, which seems to suggest that we do not have to give up the requirement of negative affectedness on the robbed person, after all.



Chapter 9.  The locative alternation with verbs of removal 

Now when we turn to the Google search engine, we do occasionally find rob in the from variant frame. (34) a. Four men from Birmingham, England robbed about $139852.50 from a bank in Newport, south Wales. (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/crime/) b. They thought that I, the defender of the meek and exploited hotel patrons, would act as if the hotel industry had not shamelessly robbed billions from consumers with their room-service gouging. (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/sadobs.htm)

Remarkably, what appears as a direct object is always a large amount of money. This seems to be traced back to the negative affectedness requirement: After all, a small amount’s loss is unlikely to negatively affect the robbed person, as noted above. Thus while attested data of the from variant of rob are indeed found, this does not mean that rob is a full-fledged alternating verb. The attested data of the from variant found in the BNC are actually not strictly possessional; the from variant in the possessional sense is rather marginal. Probably it is judged acceptable by those for whom the requirement of negative affectedness on the robbed person is not absolute. 9.5  Summary The locative alternation with verbs of removal can be handled by a lexicalconstructional account, parallel to the alternation involving spray/load verbs. Unlike the latter type of alternation, however, the alternation involving verbs of removal poses a puzzle: Why should clear, a change of state verb, alternate, despite the fact that change of state verbs generally do not alternate? A closer examination reveals that this is due to the complex interplay between the verb meaning and the “logic” of the spatial domain. This once again confirms my thesis that a detailed examination of verb meanings is essential to a successful constructional account.

chapter 10

Morphologically complex cases 10.0  Introduction It has been reported in the literature on locative alternation that in several languages the verb is morphologically complex in one of its variants, a clear ­indication of morphological derivation (see Moravcsik 1978; De Groot 1984; Ackerman 1992; Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995, 1998; Brinkmann 1997; Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2001, among others). While this type of alternation is not ­observable in English, this issue needs to be touched upon, in that proponents of a derivational account may well apply a zero morphology analysis to the locative ­alternation in English. In this chapter, therefore, I will briefly explore the feasibility of such a zero morphology analysis. I will then turn to the issue of how the prefix over- has an effect on the possibility of alternation in English.

10.1  Zero morphology analysis 10.1.1  German beIt has been held in the literature (Brinkmann 1997; Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2001) that in German while the verb spritzen (‘‘spray’’) appears only in the locatum-asobject frame, as in (1), its prefixed form bespritzen (‘‘be-spray’’) appears in the location-as-object frame alone, as in (2).

(1) a.

Die Randalierer spritzten Farbe auf das Auto. the vandals sprayed paint onto the car ‘The vandals sprayed paint onto the car.’

b.  *Die Randalierer spritzten das Auto mit Farbe. the vandals sprayed the car with paint ‘The vandals sprayed the car with paint.’ (2) a. *Die Randalierer bespritzten Farbe auf das Auto. the vandals be-sprayed paint onto the car ‘The vandals (be-)sprayed paint onto the car.’

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

b. Die Randalierer bespritzten das Auto mit Farbe. the vandals be-sprayed the car with paint ‘The vandals (be-)sprayed the car with paint.’  (adapted from Brinkmann 1997: 69)

Similar phenomena have been reported in Hungarian, as in (3) and (4), and Russian, as in (5). Hungarian1 (3) a. a paraszt (ra=)rakta a szenat a szekerre the peasant (onto)loaded-3sg/def the hay-acc the wagon-subl ‘The peasant loaded the hay onto the wagon.’ b.  *a paraszt (ra=)rakta a szekeret szenaval the peasant (onto)loaded-3sg/def the wagon-acc hay-instr ‘The peasant loaded the wagon with hay.’ (4) a.  *a paraszt meg=rakta a szenat a szekerre the peasant perf-loaded-3sg/def the hay-acc the wagon-subl ‘The peasant loaded the hay onto the wagon.’ b. a paraszt meg=rakta a szekeret (szenaval) the peasant perf-loaded-3sg/def the wagon-acc (hay-instr) ‘The peasant loaded the wagon (with hay).’  (Ackerman 1992: 59) Russian (5) a.

Krest’jany na-gruzili seno na telegu. Peasants (nom) na-loaded hay (acc) on cart-acc ‘The peasants loaded hay onto the cart.’

b. Krest’jany za-gruzili telegu senom. Peasants (nom) za-loaded cart-acc hay-inst ‘The peasants loaded the cart with hay.’  (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1998: 262)

Thus in these languages the locative alternation seems to be accompanied by a morphological derivation. Note that this is apparently at odds with my proposed analysis, according to which the two variants of the locative alternation are obtained because the alternating verb is compatible with either of the two verb-class-specific constructions, as in Figure 1 (a), and the two variants are in no way derivationally related, as in Figure 1 (b). My non-derivational account seems plausible for the locative alternation in English, where there is no evidence for directionality between the two variants. But Pinker’s theory looks quite plausible for the putative locative alternation in German, in that the morphological complexity supports the assumed directionality between the two variants, as shown in Figure 2. 2



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases  Syn: [NPXV NPY directional PPZ]

Syn:

Sem: “X moves Y into/onto Y”

Sem: “X causes Y to have a layer over it”

Syn: […………]

Syn: [NPX spray NPY dir-PPZ]

Sem: “…………….” Sem:

“……………..”

[NPXV NPY]

Syn: [NPX spray NPY]

Syn: […………….]

Sem: “…………….”

Sem: “…………….”

(a) lexical-constructional account spray paint onto the wall

spray the wall with paint

(b) lexical rule account

Figure 1.  Lexical-constructional account vs. lexical rule account.

Verbs:

Thematic cores:

Syntactic frame:

‘spritzen’

Move substance in a particular manner to an object

V NP auf NP

‘bespritzen’

Affect object in a particular way by adding substance

V NP mit NP

Figure 2.  A possible analysis of spritzen/bespritzen in Pinker’s theory.

As a matter of fact, those who believe in a derivational approach will probably go one step further and attempt to assimilate the locative alternation in English to that in German by positing a zero morpheme as in (6). (6) a. spritzen → be-spritzen b. spray → 0-spray

One seemingly strong piece of evidence for this zero morphology analysis comes from the fact that in early stages of English, the comparable prefix was available (Brinkmann 1997). It follows, then, that this zero morphology analysis will likely consist in positing a zero prefix in English, which is essentially identical to German be-. I will call this analysis a “virtual be- analysis.” In order to maintain my constructional account, then, it is necessary to examine the feasibility of this “virtual be-analysis.”

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

10.1.2  Problems of a virtual be- analysis This virtual be- analysis suffers from a number of problems. First, not all ­locationas-object variants can be accommodated by the virtual be- analysis. Brinkmann (1997) observes that not all be-verbs may appear in the “applicative pattern” (to borrow the term from Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2001). When schmieren (‘‘smear’’) and hängen (‘‘hang’’) are prefixed by be-, the resulting verbs may occur in the ­applicative pattern, as in (7) and (8). But this is not the case with stopfen (‘‘stuff ’’) and quetschen (‘‘cram’’), as in (9) and (10). (7) a.

Ted schmierte Butter auf die Tischdecke. ‘Ted smeared butter onto the tablecloth.’

b. Ted beschmierte die Tischdecke mit Butter. ‘Ted (be-)smeared the tablecloth with butter.’ (8) a.

Petra hängte Sterne an den Christbaum. ‘Petra hung stars onto the Christmas tree.’

b. Petra behängte den Christbaum mit Sternen. ‘Petra (be-)hung the Christmas tree with stars.’  (Brinkmann 1997: 80) (9) a.

Sie stopfte ihre Hosen in ihren Rucksack. ‘She stuffed her trousers into her backpack.’

b. *Sie bestopfte ihren Rucksack mit ihren Hosen. ‘She (be-)stuffed her backpack with her trousers.’ (10) a.

Er quetschte seine Wäsche in den Koffer. ‘He crammed his laundry into the suitcase.’

b.  *Er bequetschte den Koffer mit seiner Wäsche.’ ‘He (be-)crammed the suitcase with his laundry.’  (Brinkmann 1997: 80)

Since our zero prefix “virtual be-” in English is motivated by the German prefix be-, it should have essentially the same function. It follows, then, that this zero morphology would only handle some of the alternating verbs. The second problem is closely related to the first. One thing to recognize in this regard is that German be- can handle only the derivation from the locatumas-object variant to the location-as-object variant. Since the putative zero prefix is essentially the same as German be-, as shown in (6), it too should handle only derivation in this direction. Note here that the zero prefix analysis actually undermines Pinker’s theory. Recall that Pinker took pains to ensure that the derivation could go in either direction (from the locatum-as-object variant to the location-as-object variant and from



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases 

the location-as-object variant to the locatum-as-object variant). But the ­putative zero prefix (i.e., virtual be-) can accommodate only one of the derivations at all. So despite appearances, the virtual be- analysis actually poses a problem for Pinker’s account. 10.1.3  The German applicative pattern is not the location-as-object variant Yet the most serious problem for the virtual be- analysis comes from the ­following consideration. Obviously, the virtual be-analysis is built on the assumption that in German the applicative pattern in (11b) is the counterpart for the locationas-object variant in English. (11) a. Die Randalierer spritzten Farbe auf das Auto.

the vandals sprayed paint onto the car ‘The vandals sprayed paint onto the car.’

b. Die Randalierer bespritzten das Auto mit Farbe. the vandals be-sprayed the car with paint ‘The vandals (be-)sprayed the car with paint.’

This very assumption, however, has been challenged by Dewell (2004). According to Dewell, be- simply describes a sustained (and typically iterative) interaction directed at a location and is far from a grammatical device to turn non-alternating verbs into alternating ones. In what follows, I will summarize Dewell’s claim by casting some of his arguments in a way relevant to the current context. First, contrary to the widely held view, some German verbs do alternate between the two frames, with morphologically simple verbs being found in the location-as-object frame, as in (12b) and (13b). In these cases, the applicative pattern with be-verbs, as in (12c) and (13c), appears along with the location-asobject variants with morphologically simple verbs. (12) a.

Die Mutter streicht Marmelade aufs Brot. ‘The mother is spreading jam on the bread.’

b. Die Mutter streicht ein Brot mit Marmelade. ‘The mother is spreading a sandwich (open-faced) with jam.’ c.

Die Mutter bestreicth ein Brot mit Marmelade. ‘The mother is (be-)spreading a piece of bread with jam.’

(13) a.

Sie laden Fässer auf den Lastwagen. ‘They’re loading barrels onto the truck.’

b. Sie laden den Lastwagen mit Fässern. ‘They’re loading the truck with barrels.’ c. 

Sie beladen den Lastwagen mit Fässern. ‘They’re (be-)loading the truck with barrels.’ (Dewell 2004: 23)

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

This casts strong doubt on the assumption that the locative alternation in German is mediated by the prefix be-. This fact might not pose a problem for zero-morphology analyses, if morphologically simple verbs and be-verbs, with apparently identical syntactic frames, were semantically identical. Then the location-as-object variant in German would happen to allow the verb to appear in either of the two forms, i.e., with or without be-. But this is quite unlikely. As a matter of fact, Dewell (2004) observes that be-verbs differ from morphologically simple verbs in the location-as-object frame. Most crucially, the be-verb typically describes a sustained activity with no defined endpoint, in contrast to the simple verb in the location-as-object frame, which has an endpoint. According to Dewell (2004: 24), in (14a) the event has been completed when the suitcase has been filled and is ready to be closed up and carried off with its contents inside. By contrast, (14b) does not provide us with any intrinsic point at which we can know that the last item has been added and the packing event is complete. (14) a.

Sie packte den Koffer. ‘She packed the suitcase.’

b. Sie bepackte das Auto (mit vielen Sachen). ‘She (be-)packed the car (with a lot of things).’

Similarly, (15a) describes a process that is completed when a finished product is created, whereas (15b) simply describes an iterable process of application (stroking motions with the knife). (15) a.

Die Mutter streicht ein Brot mit Marmelade. ‘The mother is spreading a sandwich (open-faced) with jam.’

b. Die Mutter bestreicth ein Brot mit Marmelade. ‘The mother is (be-)spreading a piece of bread with jam.’

Since the be-verb does not require an endpoint, it does not require a location to be completely covered/filled. Thus while (16a) is anomalous, it makes sense to say (16b). That is, while the location-as-object variant with laden clearly indicates that the truck is filled completely, this is not the case with beladen. (16) a.  #Er hat den Lastwagen schon geladen, und nun ladt er noch etwas auf den Lastwagen. ‘He has already loaded the truck, and now he is loading something else onto the truck.’ b. Er hat den Lastwagen schon belade, und nun ladt er noch etwas auf den Lastwagen. ‘He has already be-loaded the truck, and now he is loading something else onto the truck.’  (Dewell 2004: 34)



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases 

Lack of endpoint also leads to an interesting restriction on the applicability of be-. Thus füllen (‘‘fill’’) and stopfen (‘‘stuff ’’) do not normally occur in the applicative pattern in question. (17) a.

Er füllt Essig in die Flasche. ‘He pours vinegar into the bottle.’

b. Er füllt die Flache mit Essig. ‘He fills the bottle with vinegar.’ c. *Er befüllt die Flasche mit Essig. ‘He (be-)fills the bottle with vinegar.’ (18) a.

Sie stopften Wachs in das Loch. ‘They stuffed wax into the hole.’

b. Sie stopften das Loch mit Wachs. ‘They stuffed the hole with wax. c.  *Sie bestopften das Loch mit Wachs. ‘They (be-)stuffed the hole with wax. 

(Dewell 2004: 25)

This can be attributed to the fact that both verbs describe the filling of a ­containable space and thus have an intrinsic point of completion defined by that containable space (Dewell 2004: 25).3 Furthermore, while it has been claimed that be-verbs involve ‘‘cover’’ ­semantics (Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2001), the sense of covering does not actually seem to be essential to them. It is true that in many cases be-verbs involve something like ‘‘cover’’ semantics. But this is because the process of applying a mass or ­multiplex entity to a location is normally iterative, sustained, and distributed, presumably continuing until the location has been substantially covered. Actually, the location does not have to be completely covered/filled, as seen above. And while with simple verbs the location needs to be large enough to be “covered,” this is not the case with be-verbs: if the direct object is eine Schnitte Brot (“a slice of bread”), then the location-as-object variant with a ­morphologically simple verb is inappropriate but the applicative pattern with a be-verb is fine (Dewell 2004: 33). (19) a.  ??Die Mutter streicht eine Schnitte Brot mit Marmelade. ‘The mother is spreading a slice of bread with jam.’ b. Die Mutter bestreicth eine Schnitte Brot mit Marmelade. ‘The mother is (be-)spreading a slice of bread with jam.’

Moreover, the application of a mass entity to a location is not exactly ­identical between be-verbs and simple verbs. While simple verbs (e.g., streichen) describe smoothly spreading masses, be-verbs (e.g., bestreichen) describe the adding of a

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

mass sequentially, one portion or “blob” at a time. Consequently, with be-verbs the applications are likely to be uneven and sloppy, leading to the pejorative ­connotations as in (20b).4 (20) a.

Sie hat die Fahrradkette geschmiert. ‘She greased the bicycle chain.’

b. Sie hat sich die Hände mit Tinte beschmiert. ‘She smudged her hands with ink.’ 

(Dewell 2004: 28)

All these observations strongly indicate that the German applicative pattern is not strictly the location-as-object variant in the locative alternation, after all. Consequently, we can no longer motivate a zero morphology based on the German be-. 10.1.4  Does the locative alternation have to be morpho-syntactic? Lastly, I’d like to challenge the assumption apparently shared among ­proponents of a zero morphology analysis of the English locative alternation. ­Presumably such an assumption proceeds as follows: Since an alternation-inducing prefix was ­formerly available in English, and still is in such a closely related language as German, the “original form” of the locative alternation should be one involving morphological derivation. As it happened, the English alternating verbs lost the prefix in the course of development without losing the possibility of exhibiting the two variants, but the alternation is still fundamentally morpho-syntactic in nature. Thus even the locative alternation in present-day English should be approached as a morpho-syntactic phenomenon. The fatal mistake in this argument has just been noted in the last ­subsection, namely that the German applicative pattern with be-verbs is actually not the ­location-as-object variant, and even in German the alternation is possible without be-. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that one can still define “locative alternation” in such a loose way as to subsume both the German applicative pattern and the English locative alternation alike. Even under this supposition, it is quite doubtful whether the “original form” of a language in the synchronic sense can always be identified on the basis of ­diachronic evidence. Besides, such a view is at odds with the fact that the locative alternation involving no morphological changes can be found in a language as ­historically unrelated to English as Japanese. Anticipating the discussion in chapter 11, here I briefly illustrate the locative alternation in Japanese. Japanese has two syntactic frames, one of which marks the locatum NP with an accusative marker o as in (21a) (ni variant) and the other of which o-marks the location NP



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases 

as in (21b) (de variant). Some verbs like nuru (‘‘to smear’’) exhibit both of the variants. (21) a.

kabe-ni penki-o nuru (ni variant) wall on paint acc smear ‘smear paint on the wall.’

b. kabe-o penki-de nuru (de variant) wall acc paint with smear ‘smear the wall with paint.’

Undoubtedly, it is far-fetched to analyze the locative alternation in Japanese on the analogy of the German data. Thus the type of alternation involving no ­morphological changes should be recognized in any way. Interestingly enough, even in Japanese sometimes the alternation seems to be accompanied by a morphological derivation. The Japanese verb maku (‘‘to sprinkle’’) does not occur in the de variant as in (22), but appears in that frame when accompanied by -tsukusu (‘‘to exhaust’’), as in (23). (22) 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.’ (23) hodoo o mizu de maki-tsukusu sidewalk acc water with sprinkle-up ‘sprinkle up the sidewalk with water’  (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 11–12)

Apparently, -tsukusu suffixation has the same effect as German be- prefixation. But -tsukusu suffixation is not very productive. Many verbs (e.g., sosogu (‘‘to pour’’), tsugu (‘‘to pour’’), tsukeru (‘‘to attach’’)) cannot appear in the de-variant syntax even after being suffixed with -tsukusu. (24) a. ?*koppu-o mizu-de sosogi-tsukusu glass acc water with pour-exhaust ‘pour the glass completely with water.’ b. ?*koppu-o mizu-de tsugi-tsukusu glass acc water with pour-exhaust ‘pour the glass completely with water.’

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

c.  *kabe-o penki-de tsuke-tsukusu wall acc paint with attach-exhaust ‘attach the wall completely with paint.’

These facts are very suggestive: First, the fact that some Japanese verbs enter into the alternation without any morphological changes, along with the fact that some verbs do so with -tuskusu suffixation, means that both types of alternation may co-exist in one and the same language, which in turn indicates that it is not necessary to collapse the two types of alternation into one by brute force. Second, the fact that -tsukusu suffixation is actually very choosey means that it is not to be regarded as something like a grammatical device designed to turn a non-­alternating verb into an alternating one. If anything, its effect as observable in (23) is likely to be a result of a complex interplay of various factors.

10.2  Over-verbs and locative alternation 10.2.1  Non-uniform behaviors of over-verbs The preceding discussions may seem to have somewhat digressed from the main theme: i.e., the locative alternation in English. After all, no prefixes comparable to German be- are available in English. However, there is one prefix which is known to affect the possibility of the alternation. Thus while the unadorned verb load alternates between the two variants as in (25), its counterpart prefixed with overoccurs in the location-as-object frame alone. (25) a. Harry loaded hay onto the wagon. b. Harry loaded the wagon with hay. (26) a.  *John overloaded hay onto the wagon. b. John overloaded the wagon with hay.

(Fraser 1971: 607)

This is not limited to load. Other locative alternation verbs behave similarly (Fraser 1971; Kageyama & Yumoto 1997; Yumoto 1997).5 (27) a.  *They oversupplied rifles to the Indians. b. They oversupplied the Indians with rifles. (28) a.  *She overplanted the corn in the garden. b. She overplanted the garden with corn.

(Fraser 1971: 607)

Formalists may well analyze the prefix over- as a grammatical device which somehow limits the direct object position to the location argument. Things are not that simple, though, for over-prefixation brings about a variety of changes in the



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases 

syntactic frame: Thus eat is optionally transitive as in (29), but overeat is apparently only intransitive as in (30); sleep is intransitive, but oversleep may be transitive as in (31); or the syntactic frame may remain unchanged as in (32). (29) a. John ate. b. John ate an apple. (30) a. John overate. b. *?John overate apples. (31) a. John slept well last night. b. John overslept his appointment. (32) a. John heated the room. b. John overheated the room. (all from Yumoto 1997)

Thus the effects of over-prefixation are quite complex and puzzling. What’s more, they are even very subtle. As seen above, it has been reported in the literature that when locative alternation verbs are prefixed with over-, the resulting verbs allow the location-as-object variant alone. However, I have come across the following attested data. (33) OVER SPRAYING PESTICIDES CAN BE DANGEROUS. (http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/ENTO/Mar2797a.htm)

Thus the effects of over-prefixation are quite varied and subtle. In what follows, I will address the following two questions: (1) Why does overload fail to alternate? (2) Why does overspray occur in the locatum-as-object frame in (33)? 10.2.2  Load In addressing the first question, let us begin by reviewing our constructional view of the alternation. For load to have two variants means that it has two verb-specific constructions, as in Figure 3.

Syn: [NP load NP PP]

Syn: [NP load NP (with NP)]

Sem: “…………….”

Sem:

(a) the locatum-as-object variant Figure 3.  Two verb-specific constructions of load

“…………….”

(b) the location-as-object variant

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

These two verb-specific constructions are available because the two variants arrived at from the verb meaning of load “to transfer objects onto/into a container, and fill that container” as described in Figure 4 are sanctioned by relevant verbclass-specific constructions.

Figure 4.  Schematic scene of load.

The locatum-as-object variant He loaded bricks onto the truck is acceptable because it is sanctioned by a verb-class-specific construction which pairs the ­syntactic frame [NPX V NP Y PPZ] with the semantics “X moves Y into/onto Z,” parallel to (34b). (34) a. He loaded bricks onto the truck. b. She put the box on the desk. Syn: [NPX V NPY directional PPZ] Sem: “X moves Y into/onto Y” Syn:

[NP load NP dir-PP]

Sem: “Sb. transfers objects onto a container”

Syn: [NP put NP dir-NP] Sem: “…………….”

Syn: [He loaded bricks onto the truck]

Syn: [She put the box on the desk]

Sem: “He transferred bricks onto the truck”

Sem:

“…………….……”

verb-class-specific construction

verb-specific construction

individual occurrences

Figure 5.  How the locatum-as-object variant of load is sanctioned.

On the other hand, the location-as-object variant He loaded the truck (with bricks) is acceptable because it is sanctioned by a verb-class-specific construction which pairs the syntactic frame [NPX V NPY] with the semantics “X fills Y,” parallel to (35b). (35) a. He loaded the truck with bricks. b. She filled the glass with wine.



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases  Syn: [NPX V NPY ]

verb-class-specific construction

Sem: “X fills Y” Syn:

[NP load NP]

Syn: [NP fill NP]

Sem: “Sb. fills a container with objects”

Sem: “…………….”

Syn: [He loaded the truck (with bricks)]

Syn: [She filled the glass (with wine)]

Sem: “He filled the truck with bricks”

Sem:

“…………….……”

verb-specific construction

individual occurrences

Figure 6.  How the location-as-object variant of load is sanctioned.

10.2.3  Overload Let us turn to overload. On the assumption that prefixed verbs are subject to the same general mechanisms that capture the form-meaning correlation of non­prefixed verbs, the fact that overload has only a location-as-object variant ­translates into the verb-specific construction in Figure 7. (36) a. *John overloaded bricks onto the truck. b. John overloaded the truck with bricks. Syn: [NP overload NP (with NP)] Sem:

“…………….”

Figure 7.  One verb-specific construction of overload.

In addressing the question why overload has only one verb-specific construction, an important point to note is that the scene encoded by overload is different from that by load: While in the schematic scene of load, one transfers objects onto/ into a container and fills that container as in Figure 8(a), in the overloading scene, one transfers objects onto/into a container beyond the capacity of that container as in Figure 8(b). This overloading scene makes schematic reference to a transferred entity and a container entity, which can be elaborated by bricks and the truck, respectively, as in Figure 9.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(a) the loading scene

(b) the overloading scene

Figure 8.  Loading vs. overloading.

VP: overload the truck with bricks

V: overload

NP: the truck

PP: with bricks

P: with

NP: bricks

Figure 9.  The composition of overload the truck with bricks.

Now notice that because more bricks are transferred onto the truck than the capacity of the truck allows, the truck is negatively affected. Consequently, (37a) can be regarded as instantiating the same verb-class-specific construction that (37b) instantiates, as in Figure 10. (37) a. He overloaded the truck (with bricks). b. He damaged the truck.



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases  Syn:

[NPX V NPY ]

Sem: “X negatively affects Y” Syn:

[NP overload NP]

Sem: “Sb. affects a container by loading that container beyond its capacity” Syn: [He overload the truck (with bricks)] Sem: “He affected the truck by transfering too many bricks onto it”

verb-class-specific construction

Syn: [NP damage NP] verb-specific construction Sem: “…………….”

Syn: [He damaged the truck] Sem: “………………….”

individual occurrences

Figure 10.  How the location-as-object variant of overload is sanctioned.

Thus the location-as-object variant He overloaded the truck (with bricks) is acceptable because it is sanctioned by a verb-class-specific construction which pairs the syntactic frame [NPX V NPY] with the semantics “X negatively affects Y”. But what about a locatum-as-object variant? To the extent that bricks are caused to move, it would seem possible to elaborate overload into an event of moving objects onto/into a container. But the very fact that a container entity is affected precludes this possibility. In the case of load, there is nothing that makes either one of the two ­entities (i.e., locatum and location) more salient than the other. Since both entities are equally cognitively salient, it is possible for a schematic loading scene to be elaborated into an event of transferring bricks onto a truck by focusing on a locatum entity (load bricks onto the truck), or an event of filling a truck by focusing on a location entity (load the truck (with bricks)). By contrast, with overload, a location entity, rather than a locatum entity, is affected. When one puts bricks onto a truck beyond the capacity of that truck, that act is detrimental to the truck. For instance, the truck may be physically damaged, the truck can’t move, etc. The sense of a location entity being negatively affected persists even when overloading does not involve physically moving objects onto/into a container. Interestingly enough, this is reflected by the collocation facts. Thus in (38a) and (38b), overloading appears as the direct object of risk, and in (38c) overloading is identified as the risk, suggesting that overloading is a potential source of danger (cf. Fillmore & Atkins 1992).

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(38) a.

I believe that if we deal with both of these subjects in one such conference we risk overloading the boat.

b. However, you should take care not to risk overloading the electrical wiring in the process… c. Its purpose is to split the incoming electricity supply to serve the various lighting and power circuits in the house, and to protect each of these circuits from the risk of overloading. (all from BNC)

Furthermore, the corpus data in (39) suggest that overloading is something ­dangerous (39a), to be prevented (39b), and to be blamed for (39c). (39) a. Thomas Chawner, the Architect to the Land Revenue Department, pointed out the need for a fire-proof building, and the dangers of overloading the existing structures with books and printing presses. b. Prevention of overloading is another important target for the would-be licence holder . c. Announcing the figures, Environment Minister David Trippier claimed that heavy rains were in part to blame for overloading coastal sewage treatment systems, while the preceding drought meant that a higher density of sewage bacteria had been carried in rivers. (all from BNC)

Because the sense of negative affectedness is inherent in overload, a location entity is far more salient than a locatum entity. Consequently, an overloading scene can be construed only as an event of affecting a location (container) entity. It is true that an overloading scene contains the displacement of a locatum entity as its ­component part, but the whole scene cannot be categorized as an event of causing a locatum entity to change its location. This is why overload does not allow a locatum-as-object variant. 10.2.4  Three schemas for excess overThus overload’s occurrence in the location-as-object frame alone is ultimately due to the sense of excess being understood on the basis of a container: Adding substance to a container beyond its capacity will end up negatively affecting the container. So we can extract an excess-addition-to-container schema from cases like overload. There are other schemas for excess over-. The contrast in (41) can be explained very similarly to that in (40), except that now the substance is removed from, rather than being added to, a container. (40) a. *John overloaded hay onto the wagon. b. John overloaded the wagon with hay.



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases 

(41) a. *?John overdrew money. b. John overdrew his account.

(Yumoto 1997)

The logic is basically the same: Removing substance from a container beyond its limit will end up negatively affecting the container. Hence only the location-as-object variant. So we can extract an excess-removal-from-container schema from cases like overdraw. When the excess sense is understood on the basis of a linear scale, rather than a container, the same syntactic frame is shared between the base verb and the over-verb. (42) a. John heated the room. b. John overheated the room.

We can now extract an excess-on-scale schema from cases like overheat. Consequently, the prefix over- in the excess sense has a network structure as follows. At the most general level, over-verbs invariably mean “to do beyond the proper limit”, as noted by Marchand (1969: 98). Then there are two types, according to whether the proper limit is a point on a scale (=scale-based excess) or the capacity of a container (=container-based excess). The container-based excess further divides into two types, depending upon whether the excess amount of substance is added to, or removed from, a container. Thus in considering when and why the syntactic frame differs between the base verb and the over-verb, what is crucial seems to be whether the excess sense is

‘beyond the proper limit’ ‘beyond a point on a scale’ = scale-based excess

excess-on-scale schema

‘beyond the capacity of a container’ = container-based excess

excess-addition-tocontainer schema

Figure 11.  The network of the prefix over- in the excess sense.

excess-removal-fromcontainer schema

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

understood on the basis of a container or not. When the excess sense is construed in terms of a container, the location entity is negatively affected. Hence only the location-as-object variant is available. If, on the other hand, the excess sense is construed in terms of a linear scale, such is not the case. 10.2.5  Overspray Let us turn to the second question. The verb overspray behaves similarly to ­overload, in that it may appear in the location-as-object frame. (43) a. Adjust sprinkler systems to avoid overspraying the house or causing puddles near the foundation. (http://www.bennetthomes.com/Buying_BB/maintenance.aspx) b. Keep the can about 30 cms away from the figure when spraying to avoid overspraying an area and causing drips. (http://www.princeaugust.ie/NewsletterImages/Tutorial8.html)

As pointed out 10.2.1, however, the locatum entity appears as a direct object in the following attested data. (44) OVER SPRAYING PESTICIDES CAN BE DANGEROUS. (http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/ENTO/Mar2797a.htm)

On closer examination, even this apparent exception can be accounted for by my analysis. To see this, let us make a little digression and have a look at overeat, which also appears to fluctuate in the effect of over-prefixation. As noted in 10.2.1, overeat is generally held to be only intransitive in the literature (Kageyama & Yumoto 1997; Yumoto 1997; Lieber 2004). (45) a. John overate. b.  *?John overate apples.

(Yumoto 1997: 191)

The contrast in (45) can be accounted for by invoking the excess-additionto-container schema. When we eat something, that something goes into our body, a container. Thus overeat “to eat beyond the proper limit” means “to eat beyond the capacity of oneself as a container”. If follows then that a container entity, rather than the foods eaten, is affected as a result of overeating. So far this parallels exactly the situation of overload. But unlike overload, in the case of overeat the container entity is identical to the character engaging in the act of overeating. Because there is only one participant, overeat does not fit with the transitive syntax. Instead, in English the simple intransitive syntactic frame [NP V] is available for coding one-participant events, so that overeat occurs only intransitively in (45).



Chapter 10.  Morphologically complex cases 

However, there are apparent exceptions. By using Google, I have come across the following attested examples. (46) a.

This low fat intake can often cause someone to overeat CHO (=carbohydrates), making them gain weight. (http://www.health.arizona.edu/Health%20Education%20 On- Line%20Library/Nutrition%20and%20Eating%20Issues/zone.htm)

b. BREAD, PASTA CEREAL, RICE, and GRAIN. Be careful! You tend to overeat these foods. (http://tsangenterprise.com/news5.html) c. “Situations, not hunger, trigger a stress eater’s desire to overeat their favorite comfort foods,” said Karen Miller-Kovach, MS, RD, Chief Scientist at Weight Watchers International. (http://www.weightwatchers.com/aboutus/i2_au_comp_pr_ comfort.asp) d. Why Do We Overeat Stockpiled Products? (http://www.wansink.com/lessonplans/kpmodule61.html) e. Why 100% raw vegans eat so much avocado and nuts, or overeat sugar (fruit)? (http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/cal-par/calorie-paradox1f.shtml) f.

Even vegan sweets aren’t good when you overeat them. (http://www.vegsource.com/talk/eatingissues/messages/8437. html)

How come overeat can assume the transitive syntax, despite the fact that this verb has been consistently treated as only intransitive as in (45)? This apparently baffling problem can be solved in my account. Notice that overeat cannot be followed by every NP that can be a direct object of eat. (47) a.  *Yoshika overate {apples/lunch}. b. Yoshika overate {fruit/sweets/fatty foods}.

What differentiates (47b) from (47a) is that the direct object denotes some particular type of food whose consumption in a large quantity is harmful to one’s health, irrespective of whether the person becomes full. That is, while the person who overeats something may be affected, that person is not construed as being affected as a container into which substance is put beyond the capacity of the container. Rather, whether or not a particular act counts as “overeating” depends upon whether or not the amount of the food eaten is more than the general norm or standard for a healthy living. In other words, the proper limit is defined relative to the amount of the food eaten, rather than to the person’s capacity as a container. Thus, overeat in this construal is actually based on a linear-

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

scale, rather than a container. It is quite natural, then, that overeat is transitive, like its base verb eat. Now is the time to analyze overspray in (44). Essentially the same approach to overeat obtains here as well. The direct object entity (i.e., pesticide) is something whose spraying in a large quantity is harmful to the environment irrespective of whether the location entity is fully covered. That is, overspray can take a locatum entity in its direct object position in (44) precisely because it is understood on the basis of a linear scale, rather than a container, fully in accord with my theory.

10.3  Summary The German applicative pattern with be- might appear to justify the motivation of a zero morphology analysis of the locative alternation in English. However, a zero morphology analysis cannot accomplish the task it is supposed to: It can handle only some of the alternating verbs and only derivation from the locatum-as-object variant to the location-as-object variant. Most seriously, it turns out that the German applicative pattern is not the location-as-object variant. Consequently, positing a zero prefix in English, corresponding to German be-, does not really account for anything. The prefix over- is known to affect the possibility of alternation in that locative alternation verbs prefixed with over- fail to alternate (*overload hay onto the wagon/ overload the wagon with hay). This apparent puzzle, along with the seeming vagary of over-prefixation (overspraying pesticides can be dangerous), can be ­coherently accounted for by considering how the notion of excess is understood. Thus while morphologically complex verbs may appear to pose challenging problems to my constructional account, they can be straightforwardly handled by paying close attention to the interaction of verb meanings and constructional ­meanings. In this sense, morphologically complex verbs actually support my lexical-constructional account.

chapter 11

The locative alternation in Japanese 11.0  Introduction The discussion so far has been mainly concerned with the locative alternation in English, where verbs like spray are said to alternate between a locatum-as-object variant and a location-as-object variant, as in (1). (1) a. John sprayed paint onto the wall. (locatum-as-object variant) b. John sprayed the wall with paint. (location-as-object variant)

A comparable phenomenon is observable in Japanese. In Japanese, certain verbs are known to realize either a locatum or a location as its direct object, as in (2). For convenience’s sake, the two variants will be referred to as the ni variant and the de variant.1 (2) a.

kabe-ni penki-o nuru (ni variant) wall on paint acc smear ‘smear paint on the wall’

b. kabe-o penki-de nuru (de variant) wall acc paint with smear ‘smear the wall with paint’

The locative alternation in Japanese as exemplified in (2) is the topic to be discussed in this chapter. This chapter is organized as follows. After a brief review of Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny (1985) in 11.1, 11.2 proposes a lexical-constructional analysis and 11.3 gives further examples. 11.4 shows that the alternation exhibited by morphologically complex verbs, which apparently distinguishes the locative alternation in Japanese from that in English, can actually be accounted for essentially the same way in the proposed constructional approach. 11.5 addresses still further differences between Japanese and English, and 11.6 touches upon apparent cases of locative alternation, which are actually to be kept apart from cases like (2).

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

11.1  Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny (1985) 11.1.1  Two putative characteristics of the locative alternation in Japanese Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny (1985) (henceforth FMT) is probably the most extensive study of the locative alternation in Japanese conducted within the generative framework. According to FMT, the locative alternation in Japanese is characterized by the following two features. First, the number of Japanese verbs that enter into the alternation is rather small. Of more than 20 Japanese verbs cited as verbs of materialadding, only nuru and sasu readily appear in both of the two syntactic frames. (3) a.

kabe-ni penki-o nuru wall on paint acc smear ‘smear paint on the wall’

b. kabe-o penki-de nuru wall acc paint with smear ‘smear the wall with paint’ (4) a.

Hanako-no-te-ni hari-o sasu Hanako gen hand on needle acc stick ‘stick a needle in Hanako’s hand’

b. Hanako-no-te-o hari-de sasu Hanako gen hand acc needle with stick ‘stick Hanako’s hand with a needle’  (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 5–6)

Most of the Japanese counterparts for English locative alternation verbs allow only one of the variants, i.e., the ni variant. Thus fukitsukeru (“spray”), tsumiageru (“pile”), tsumekomu (“cram”), and tsumu (“load”) fail to appear in the de variant frame. (5) a.

penki-o kabe-ni fukitsukeru paint acc wall onto spray ‘spray paint onto the wall’

b. * kabe-o penki-de fukitsukeru wall acc paint with spray ‘spray the wall with paint’ (6) a.

rooka-ni hako-o tsumiageru corridor in boxes acc pile ‘pile boxes in the corridor’

b. *rooka-o hako-de tsumiageru corridor acc boxes with pile ‘pile the corridor with boxes’



(7) a.

Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

hon-o hondana-ni tsumekomu books acc shelves into cram ‘cram books into the shelves’

b. *hondana-o hon-de tsumekomu shelves acc books with cram ‘cram the shelves with books’ (8) a.

hoshikusa-o niguruma-ni tsumu hay acc wagon onto load ‘load hay onto the wagon’

b. *niguruma-o hoshikusa-de tsumu wagon acc hay with load ‘load the wagon with hay’

This does not mean that nuru and sasu exhaust the locative alternation verbs in Japanese, though. FTM observe that Japanese has available a morphological means of turning verbs that do not alternate into those that do. Thus haru (“put. up”) does not appear in the de variant as in (9b), but the complex verb hari-tsukusu (“put.up-exhaust”) does as in (9c). (9) a.

kabe-ni posutaa-o haru wall on poster acc put.up ‘put up posters on the wall’

b. * kabe-o posutaa-de haru wall acc poster with put.up ‘put up the wall with posters’ c. 

kabe-o posutaa-de hari-tsukusu wall acc poster with put.up-exhaust ‘completely put up the wall with posters’ (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 24)

The case with maku (“sprinkle”) is similar. This verb appears only in the ni variant as in (10a), but the complex form maki-tsukusu (“sprinkle-exhaust”) may appear in the de variant as in (10c). (10) a.

mizu-o hodou-ni maku water acc sidewalk on sprinkle ‘sprinkle water on the sidewalk’

b. *hodou-o mizu-de maku sidewalk acc water with sprinkle ‘sprinkle the sidewalk with water’ c.

hodou-o mizu-de maki-tsukusu sidewalk acc water with sprinkle-exhaust ‘sprinkle the sidewalk completely with water’

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

In order to deal with these facts, FMT propose the following analysis. Essentially, in order for a verb to enter into the locative alternation, (1) the verb must take two arguments, and (2) the Lexical Conceptual Structure (=LCS) of the verb must include an “affect” clause. (11) Conditions for the Alternation i. The verb takes two arguments x, y in its LCS; and ii. One of its arguments (y) is affected by the action represented by the meaning of the verb (‘Affect y’)  (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 44)

Now according to FMT, while both oku (“put”) type verbs and nuru (“smear”) type verbs take two arguments, the existence of some material is necessarily implied with the latter but not with the former: What can be the “material” of maku is highly restricted (some liquid that can be “sprayed”) while no such restriction is placed on the object noun of the verb (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 40) oku (“put”).

Furthermore, oku (‘‘put’’) type verbs lack an “affect” clause in the LCS. Consequently, FMT differentially represent three types of verbs as in (12): oku (“put”) type verbs, which simply express a change of location; maku (“sprinkle”) type verbs, which place a selectional restriction on the locatum (material) argument but which lack an “affect” clause; and nuru (“smear”) type verbs, which place a selectional restriction on the locatum argument and possess an ‘affect’ clause in the LCS. (12) a. LCS of oku: OKU x at some place y b. LCS of maku: Realize the action MAKU by using the Material x c. LCS of nuru: Realize the action NURU by using the Material x & Affect y  (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 43)

Since -tsukusu suffixation is claimed to bring in an “affect” clause, the LCS of maki-tsukusu (“sprinkle-exhaust”) will end up essentially the same as that of nuru (“sprinkle”) as in (13). FMT claim that this is why maku (“sprinkle”) cannot alternate but maki-tsukusu (‘sprinkle-exhaust’’) can. (13) LCS of maki-tsukusu: Realize the action MAKU by using the Material x & Affect y (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 46)

11.1.2  Problems FMT claim that -tsukusu suffixation will increase the number of locativizable verbs significantly.



Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

… the number of basic nuru/smear verbs in Japanese is small, but the number increases significantly when we add morphological endings to verbs which are not of the nuru/smear type. (Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 24, emphasis mine)

On closer inspection, however, it turns out that compound formation with –tsukusu is not so productive as FMT claim. Thus while sosogu (‘‘pour’’), tsugu (‘‘pour’’), and tsukeru (‘‘attach’’) appear only in the ni variant frame, parallel to maku (‘‘sprinkle’’) and haru (‘‘put.up’’), their corresponding complex forms involving -tsukusu are not acceptable. (14) a.

koppu-ni mizu-o sosogu glass into water acc pour

b. *koppu-o mizu-de sosogu glass acc water with pour c. ?*koppu-o mizu-de sosogi-tsukusu glass acc water with pour-exhaust (15) a.

koppu-ni mizu-o tsugu glass into water acc pour

b. *koppu-o mizu-de tsugu glass acc water with pour c. ?*koppu-o mizu-de tsugi-tsukusu glass acc water with pour-exhaust (16) a.

kabe-ni penki-o tsukeru wall on paint acc attach

b. *kabe-o penki-de tsukeru wall acc paint with attach c. *kabe-o penki-de tsuke-tsukusu wall acc paint with attach-exhaust

The mere fact that certain verbs cannot appear in the de variant frame even with -tsukusu does not invalidate FMT’s analysis, of course. As seen above, FMT differentially represent maku (“sprinkle”) type verbs, which place a selectional restriction on the locatum argument, from oku (“put”) type verbs, which do not place a comparable selectional restriction on the locatum argument. FMT’s theory predicts that oku (“put”) type verbs should not alternate even with the addition of -tsukusu, and this is indeed the case. (17) a.

hon-o tsukue-ni oku book acc desk on put ‘put a book on the desk’

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

b. *tsukue-o hon-de oku desk acc book with put ‘put a desk with a book’ c. *tsukue-o hon-de oki-tsukusu desk acc book with put-exhaust ‘put-exhaust a desk with books’

Note, however, that both sosogu (“pour”) and tsugu (“pour”) place essentially the same restriction on the locatum argument as maku (“sprinkle”). It follows then that sosogu (“pour”) and tsugu (“pour”) should receive the same LCS representation as maku (“sprinkle”), rather than as oku (“put”). Consequently, FMT cannot explain why sosogu (“pour”) and tsugu (“pour”) cannot appear in the de variant even when they are suffixed by -tsukusu. Moreover, none of the four verbs seen above (fukitsukeru (“spray”), tsumiageru (“pile”), tsumekomu (“cram”), and tsumu (“load”)), which are counterparts for English locative alternation verbs but which nevertheless do not alternate, can be turned into alternating verbs via -tsukusu suffixation.2 (18) a. ?*kabe-o penki-de fukitsuke-tsukusu wall acc paint with spray-exhaust ‘spray the wall completely with paint’ b. ?*rooka-o hako-de tsumiage-tsukusu corridor acc boxes with pile-exhaust ‘pile the corridor completely with boxes’ c.  ?*hondana-o hon-de tsumekomi-tsukusu shelves acc books with cram-exhaust ‘cram the shelves completely with books’ d. ?*niguruma-o hoshikusa-de tsumi-tsukusu wagon acc hay with load-exhaust ‘load the wagon completely with hay’

Again, these verbs place a selectional restriction on the locatum argument and, therefore, should behave identically with maku (“sprinkle”). But this is not the case. Thus the fact remains that contrary to FMT, -tsukusu suffixation does not increase the number of alternating verbs significantly.3 Let us next consider the other putative characteristic of the locative alternation in Japanese, i.e., the very small number of alternating verbs. Given that only nuru (“smear”) and sasu (“stick”) readily alternate, and that -tsukusu suffixation works only for maku (“sprinkle”) and haru (“put.up”), the total number of Japanese alternating verbs observed by FMT is four. Does this mean that the number of alternating verbs in Japanese is this small?



Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

Again, a closer examination reveals that things are not exactly as FMT claim. I have so far found the following verbs, which can safely be said to alternate between the two variants.4 (19)

a. nuru (“smear”), haru (“stretch”), maku (“wind”) b. chiribameru (“inlay’’), mabusu (“coat”) c. tsumeru (“stuff ”), umeru (“bury”) d. moritsukeru (“dish up”), yamamori-ni suru (“heap up”), yamazumi-ni suru (“pile up”)

(20) a. maki-tsukusu (“sprinkle-exhaust”), hari-tsukusu (“put up-exhaust”) b. hatte-iku (“go-putting up”) (21) a. mitasu (“fill”), ippai-ni suru (“make full”), tsumarasu (“stick”) b. kazaru (“decorate”) c. chirakasu (“clutter”) (22) a. kukuru (“tie up”), shibaru (“bind”), tomeru (“fasten”), utsu (“drive”) b. karameru (“entwine”), aeru (“dress”), mazeru (“mix”) (23) a. sasu (“prick”), tsukisasu (“stick”) b. iru (“shoot”), ateru (“hit”), butsukeru (“throw”)

Certainly the number of alternating verbs in Japanese is smaller than that in English, but not so small as FMT’s exposition would have us believe. Having seen the fundamental facts about the locative alternation in Japanese, two questions immediately arise: (1) Can the analysis of the locative alternation in English be extended to the Japanese locative alternation? (2) Why does -tsukusu suffixation allow certain verbs to appear in the de variant frame? In what follows, we will address these two questions in turn.

11.2  Analysis 11.2.1  Nuru Recall that in English, verbs like pour allow the locatum-as-object variant alone, and those like cover the location-as-object variant alone. (24) a. John poured water into the glass. b.  *John poured the glass with water. (25) a. *John covered a cloth over the table. b. John covered the table with a cloth.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Now an entirely parallel phenomenon is observable in Japanese. Thus sosogu (“pour”) may appear in the ni variant syntax alone, while oou (‘‘cover’’) may occur in the de variant syntax alone. (26) a.

koppu-ni mizu-o sosogu glass into water acc pour ‘pour water into the glass’

b. *koppu-o mizu-de sosogu glass acc water with pour ‘pour the glass with water’ (27) a. *nuno-o teeburu-ni oou cloth acc table on cover ‘cover a cloth over the table’ b. teeburu-o nuno-de oou table acc cloth with cover ‘cover the table with a cloth’

This parallelism suggests that the locative alternation in Japanese may well be approached in fundamentally the same way as the locative alternation in English. That this is indeed the case is best illustrated with the alternation exhibited by nuru (“smear”). (28) a.

kabe-ni penki-o nuru (ni variant) wall on paint acc smear ‘smear paint on the wall’

b. kabe-o penki-de nuru (de variant) wall acc paint with smear ‘smear the wall with paint’

Just like smear, the verb meaning of nuru makes schematic reference to a liquid entity and a surface, with the liquid typically undergoing a back and forth movement of strokes over the surface.

Figure 1.  The manner of nuru.

Now in (28a) these two entities are elaborated by penki-o (“paint”) and kabe-ni (“on the wall”). Accordingly, the semantic structures are combined to yield the scene for kabe-ni penki-o nuru, as in Figure 2.



Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese  VP: kabe-ni penki-o nuru

kabe-ni

kabe

penki-o

nuru

ni

Figure 2.  The composition of kabe-ni penki-o nuru.

By focusing on the paint’s movement within the scene, we get the interpretation “to send paint onto the wall,” as in Figure 3.

kae-ni penki-o nuru Figure 3.  Kabe-ni penki-o nuru.

Under this interpretation, nuru is semantically similar to verbs like tsukeru (“put”, “attach”), which appear in the syntactic frame [NP-o NP-ni V]. Consequently, (29b) can be regarded as instantiating the same verb-class-specific construction that (29a) instantiates, as in Figure 4. (29) a.

kabe-ni penki-o tsukeru wall on paint acc put ‘put paint on the wall’

b. kabe-ni penki-o nuru wall on paint acc smear ‘smear paint on the wall’

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach Syn:

[NPX–ni NPY–o V]

verb-class-specific construction

Sem: “to move X into/onto Y” Syn: [NPX–ni NPY–o tsukeru]

Syn: [NPX–ni NPY–o nuru]

Sem: “………………..”

Sem: “…………………..”

Syn: [kabe-ni penki-o tuskeru]

Syn: [kabe-ni penki-o nuru]

Sem: “………………..”

Sem: “…………………..”

Verb-specific construction

Individual occurrences

Figure 4.  How the ni-variant of nuru is sanctioned.

Thus the ni variant kabe-ni penki-o nuru (“smear paint on the wall”) is acceptable because it is sanctioned by a verb-class-specific construction which pairs the syntactic frame [NP-o NP-ni V] with the semantics “X moves Y into/onto Z.” Let us next turn to the de variant. Starting with the verb meaning of nuru, essentially the same scene is obtained as before. VP: kabe-o penki-de nuru

kabe-o

penki-de

penki

nuru

de

Figure 5.  The composition of kabe-o penki-de nuru.

By focusing on the wall this time, we get the interpretation “to cover the wall with paint,” as in Figure 6, so that nuru is semantically similar to oou (“cover”).



Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

kabe-o penki-de nuru Figure 6.  Kabe-o penki-de nuru.

Consequently, (30b) can be regarded as instantiating the same verb-class-specific construction that (30a) instantiates, as in Figure 7. (30) a.

teeburu-o nuno-de oou table acc cloth with cover ‘cover the table with a cloth’

b. kabe-o penki-de nuru wall acc paint with smear ‘smear the wall with paint’

Syn: [NPX -o NPY-de V]

verb-class-specific construction

Sem: “to cause a layer to cover X” Syn: [NPX-o NPY-de oou]

Syn: [NPX-o NPY-de nuru]

Sem: “…………….”

Sem: “……………...”

Syn: [teeburu-o nuno-de oou] Sem: “………………..”

verb-specific construction

Syn: [kabe-o penki-de nuru] Sem: “…………………..”

Individual occurrences

Figure 7:  How the de variant of nuru is sanctioned.

Thus the de variant kabe-o penki-de nuru (“smear the wall with paint”) is acceptable because it is sanctioned by a verb-class-specific construction which pairs the syntactic frame [NP-o NP-de V] with the semantics “X causes a layer to cover Y.” Clearly, the alternation exhibited by Japanese nuru is accounted for in a manner entirely parallel to that by English smear. An automatic consequence of this parallel treatment is that certain advantages of the analysis of the English

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

data carry over to that of the Japanese data. Recall that in my account, the fact that the location-as-object variant, but not the locatum-as-object variant, is accompanied by a holistic interpretation, as evidenced by the contrast in (31), can be attributed to the fact that the location-as-object variant is sanctioned by the cover-class-specific construction. (31) a. John smeared paint on the wall, but most of the wall didn’t get any paint on it. b.  ?*John smeared the wall with paint, but most of the wall didn’t get any paint on it.

Now a parallel contrast is observed between the ni variant and the de variant. (32) a.

kabe-ni penki-o nut-ta kedo kabe-no-daibubun wall on paint acc smear past though wall gen most wa nurarete inai top smeared not ‘I smeared paint on the wall, but most of the wall is not smeared’

b. ?*kabe-o penki-de nut-ta kedo kabe-no-daibubun wall acc paint with smear past though wall gen most wa nurarete inai top smeared not ‘I smeared the wall with paint, but most of the wall is not smeared’

Parallel to the English case, the holistic interpretation associated with the de variant is attributable to the “cover” semantics of the construction sanctioning the de variant. Note also that in order for a location-as-object variant to instantiate the cover-class-specific construction, the area occupied by the locatum needs to be sufficiently large. Lynne Roecklein has observed (personal communication) that she finds (33b) a bit strange, for one’s fingernail is too small to be ‘‘covered’’. (33) a. She spread cream on her fingernail. b.  ?She spread her fingernail with cream.

Thus even if the locatum is all over the location, when the area occupied by the locatum is not so large, the sentence is not judged perfectly acceptable.5 Again, a parallel phenomenon can be found in Japanese. Thus despite the fact that a representative instance of the locative alternation can be constructed by using nuru (“smear”) as seen so far, a slight change in the selection of the location entity will lead to a degraded acceptability. (34b) is judged slightly less acceptable, because a single slice of bread is not large enough to be ‘‘covered’’.6 (34) a.

pan-ni bataa-o nuru bread on butter acc smear ‘spread butter on the bread’



Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

b. ?pan-o bataa-de nuru bread acc butter with smear ‘spread the bread with butter’

Remarkably, (34b) improves in the context in which the bread is exceptionally large, like a Guinness competition. (35) zenchou 1-meetoru-mo aru kyodai-na pan-o as large as 1 meter wide giant bread acc hashi-kara hashi-made bataa-de nut-ta from edge to edge butter with spread past ‘They spread the giant bread, all of one meter wide, with butter from edge to edge’

This is because the location entity is now large enough to be ‘‘covered’’. 11.2.2  Haru Let us next consider haru. The situation here is a bit complicated, as the status of the de variant is somewhat controversial. FMT judge the de variant of haru unacceptable, as in (36b). (36) a.

posutaa-o kabe-ni haru poster acc wall on put.up ‘hang posters on the wall’

b. * kabe-o posutaa-de haru wall acc poster with put.up ‘hang the wall with posters’

(Fukui, Miyagawa & Tenny 1985: 8-9)

By contrast, Kawano (1997: 33) observes that the de variant of haru is acceptable. (37) a.

kabe-ni shiroi kabegami-o haru wall on white wallpaper acc

b. kabe-o shiroi kabegami-de haru wall acc white wallpaper with

Both Matsumoto (2000: 203) and Kishimoto (2001b: 79), noting these apparently conflicting judgments, state that the judgment of haru is “subtle.” However, there is nothing puzzling about haru once one realizes that Japanese has two harus. Although the difference is neutralized in the Roman alphabets, the two verbs are written with different Chinese characters. The first one, haru1, is written as 張る and roughly means “to stretch, to spread”, while the second one, haru2, is written as 貼る and means “to put on, to stick, to paste”. The apparent conflicting judgments can be reconciled if one assumes that when Kawano judges (37b) as acceptable, she means haru1, whereas when FMT

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

judge (36b) as unacceptable, they mean haru2.7 Seen in this light, the paradigm exhibited by the two verbs is fully in accord with my view of the locative alternation. Since haru1 is compatible with the sense of enlargement, it can acceptably appear in the de variant, as in (38). But this is not the case with haru2, as in (39). (38) a.

kabe-ni kabegami-o haru1 wall on wall-paper acc stretch ‘spread wall-paper on the wall’

b. kabe-o kabegami-de haru1 wall acc wall-paper with stretch ‘spread the wall with wall-paper’ (39) a.

kabe-ni kabegami-o haru2 wall on wall-paper acc put ‘put up wall-paper on the wall’

b. ?*kabe-o kabegami-de haru2 wall acc wall-paperwith put ‘put up the wall with wall-paper’

The difference between the two verbs can be further appreciated by noting the range of possible events expressed by the two verbs. While haru2 is always used as a verb of putting as in (40), haru1 is not necessarily used as such. In fact, the notion of stretching or spreading something is so central to haru1 that this verb can be used to describe the forming of a thin coat of ice on the pond, the spreading of a plant’s roots underground, or the tight stretching of a rope. (40) fuutou-ni kitte-o haru2 envelope on stamp acc put ‘put a stamp on an envelope’ (41) a.

ike-ni koori-ga hat1-ta pond on ice nom stretch past ‘A coat of ice formed on the pond’

b. matsu-no-ne-ga chichuu-ni fukaku hat1-te iru pine gen root nom underground deep spread ‘The pine has spreading roots deep underground’  (Koizumi et al. 1989: 433) (42) roopu-o pinto haru1 rope acc tight stretch ‘stretch a rope tight’

In fact, the two verbs differ as to the choice of the locatum entity. Haru2 can take shasin (“picture”) as the locatum entity in the ni variant, as in (43a). The de variant is not acceptable as the “cover” semantics requirement is not met.



(43) a.

Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

kabe-ni shasin-o haru2 wall on picture acc put ‘put up a picture on the wall’

b. *kabe-o shasin-de haru2 wall acc picture with put ‘put up the wall with a picture’

But when haru1 takes shasin (‘‘picture’’) as the locatum entity, neither variant is acceptable. (44) a.  ?*kabe-ni shasin-o haru1 wall on picture acc stretch ‘spread a picture on the wall’ b.  ?*kabe-o shasin-de haru1 wall acc picture with stretch ‘spread the wall with a picture’

This is because our world knowledge tells us that a normal size picture is not something that is stretched/spread out on the wall. Thus the apparent fluctuation in the judgment of haru can be coherently accounted for in my theory. Haru1 is an alternating verb, as Kawano rightly observes. By contrast, haru2 does not alternate, although it may appear in the de variant when suffixed with -tsukusu, as FMT observe. 11.2.3  Maku Let us turn to maku (“wind”).8 This verb may occur both in ni variant and de variant frames, as in (45). (45) a.

ude-ni houtai-o maku arm on bandage acc wind ‘wind a bandage around the arm’

b. ude-o houtai-de maku arm acc bandage with wind ‘wind the arm with a bandage’

Interestingly enough, however, when the locatum entity is ito (“thread”), rather than houtai (“bandagae”), the de variant is less acceptable, as in (46b). But the de variant improves when guruguru (“round and round”) is added, as in (46c). (46) a.

yubi-ni ito-o maku finger on thread acc wind ‘wind thread around a finger’

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

b. ??yubi-o ito-de maku finger acc thread with wind ‘wind a finger with thread’ c.

yubi-o ito-de guruguru maku finger acc thread with round and round wind ‘wind up a finger round about with thread’

This is due to the different configurations the locatum comes to display. In (45b) the arm is covered with a bandage, which is extended in two dimensions. But in (46b) the finger cannot be said to be covered by a single loop of thread. It is possible, however, to cover a finger by winding thread around it repeatedly. This is why (46c) is acceptable. 11.3  Further alternating verbs There are still further alternating verbs in Japanese, parallel to the English alternating verbs. Since these cases of alternation can be straightforwardly accounted for along the same lines as before, I will simply note them without detailed comments. First, the following are instances of the ‘‘cover’’ type, as mabusu (‘‘coat’’) and chiribameru (‘‘inlay’’) both involve covering a surface. (47) a.

kinako-o mochi-ni mabusu soybean flour acc rice cake on coat ‘coat soybean flour on the rice cake’

b. mochi-o kinako-de mabusu rice cake acc soybean flour with coat ‘coat the rice cake with soybean flour’ (48) a.

houseki-o doresu-ni chiribameru jewel acc dress on inlay ‘inlay jewels on the dress’

b. doresu-o houseki-de chiribameru dress acc jewel with inlay ‘inlay the dress with jewels’

Next, tsumeru (“stuff ”) may well count as a member of the ‘‘fill’’ type, in that a container comes to be filled. Judgments are not always clear-cut, but informants find the de variants acceptable to the extent that they can imagine the box etc. as being occupied to the full. (49) a.

hako-ni ichigo-o tsumeru box in strawberry acc stuff ‘stuff strawberries into the box’



Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

b. hako-o ichigo-de tsumeru box acc strawberry with stuff ‘stuff the box with strawberries’ (50) a.

gohan-o aburaage-ni tsumeru rice acc deep-fried tofu in stuff ‘stuff rice into deep-fried tofu’

b. aburaage-o gohan-de tsumeru deep-fried tofu acc rice with stuff ‘stuff deep-fried tofu with rice’ (51) a.

nendo-o ana-ni tsumeru clay acc opening in stuff ‘stuff clay into the opening’

b. ana-o nendo-de tsumeru opening acc clay with stuff ‘stuff the opening with clay’

Umeru (‘‘bury, fill up’’) may also be included in this category. (52) a.

ana-ni gomi-o umeru hole loc trash acc bury ‘bury trash in a hole’

b. ana-o gomi-de umeru hole acc trash with bury ‘bury a hole with trash’

Third, moritsukeru (“dish up”), yamamori-ni suru (“heap up”), and yamazumini suru (“pile up”) correspond to the “pile” verbs in English. (53) a.

sara-ni gohan-o moritsukeru plate on rice acc dish up ‘dish up rice (high) onto the plate’

b. sara-o gohan-de moritsukeru plate acc rice with dish up ‘dish up the plate (high) with rice’ (54) a.

gohan-o sara-ni yamamori-ni suru rice acc plate on mountain-high-heap do ‘heap up rice (high) on the plate’

b. sara-o gohan-de yamamori-ni suru plate acc rice with mountain-high-heap do ‘heap up the plate (high) with rice’ (55) a.

tsukue-ni hon-o yamazumi-ni suru desk on book acc mountain-high-pile do ‘pile up books (high) on the table

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

b. tsukue-o hon-de yamazumi-ni suru desk acc book with mountain-high-pile do ‘pile up the desk (high) with books’

11.4  Complex verbs 11.4.1  -tsukusu Let us now turn to complex verbs. As noted in 11.1, maku (“sprinkle”) may appear in the ni variant frame, but not in the de variant frame. But when it is suffixed with -tsukusu, the de variant becomes acceptable. (56) a.

mizu-o hodou-ni maku water acc sidewalk on sprinkle ‘sprinkle water on the sidewalk’

b. * hodou-o mizu-de maku sidewalk acc water with sprinkle ‘sprinkle the sidewalk with water’ c.

hodou-o mizu-de maki-tsukusu sidewalk acc water with sprinkle-exhaust ‘sprinkle the sidewalk completely with water’

A natural question that arises is why the addition of -tsukusu changes the acceptability of the de variant.9 Recall that whether a verb can appear in a particular syntactic frame depends on whether it is compatible with the constructional meaning associated with that frame. Crucially, this is true of verbs in general, irrespective of whether the verb is morphologically simple or complex. Thus the fact that the de variant of maki-tsukusu (“sprinkle-exhaust”) is possible means that it is sanctioned by a verb-class-specific construction requiring the ‘‘cover’’ semantics, along with the de variant of oou (“cover”). Syn:

[NPX–o NPY-deV]

verb-class-specific construction

Sem: “to cause a layer to cover X” Syn: [NPX–o NPY-de oou]

Syn: [NPX–o NPY-de maki-tsukusu]

Sem: “…………….”

Sem: “…………………...”

Figure 8.  How the de variant of maki-tsukusu is sanctioned.

verb-specific construction



Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

That this is possible can be appreciated by noting that maki-tsukusu (“sprinkleexhaust”), though morphologically complex, simply occupies the verbal slot of the syntax, along with non-derived verbs like oou (“cover”). Since the bracketed structural description of the de variant matches the syntax of the verb-class-specific construction, the morphological complexity in no way prevents the de variant of maki-tsukusu from instantiating the construction. Syn: Sem:

[[NPX]-o [NPY]-de [V]] “………………..”

Syn: [[NPX] –o [NPY]-de [maki-tsukusu]] Sem:

“………………..”

Figure 9.  maki-tsukusu as a single verb.

Once this point is acknowledged, the rest of the account is straightforward. The verb maku, meaning “to sprinkle a liquid over a surface”, does not require the surface to be completely covered. maku

Figure 10.  the manner of maku.

But the complex verb V-tsukusu is right-headed and means “to exhaust by V-ing”. When maku is combined with -tsukusu, therefore, the resulting meaning is “to exhaust by sprinkling a liquid over a surface.” So if the surface is understood as the entity that is exhausted, maki-tsukusu comes to mean “to exhaust a surface by sprinkling a liquid over the surface”, which essentially means “to cover a surface.” Consequently, the verbal scene expressed by hodou-o mizu-de maki-tsukusu describes a covering scene, fully in accord with the ‘‘cover’’ semantics of the construction sanctioning the de variant. Thus the de variant of maki-tsukusu can be handled in exactly the same way as other de variants of morphologically simple verbs.

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach VP: hodou-o mizu-de maki-tsukusu

hodou-o

mizu-de

maki-tsukusu ‘exhaust sth by sprinkling a liquid over a surface’ maku

-tsukusu ‘exhaust by V-ing’

Figure 11.  The composition of hodou-o mizu-de maki-tsukusu.

11.4.2  More on -tsukusu This does not mean that the suffix -tsukusu always induces the “cover” semantics, though. If -tsukusu invariably works as just described, maki-tsukusu should be limited to the de variant. Actually, however, maki-tsukusu can occur in the ni variant frame as well. (57) a.

John-wa mizu-o hodou-ni maki-tsukushi-ta John-top water-with sidewalk-loc sprinkle-exhau∂st-past ‘John sprinkled water completely on the sidewalk’

b. John-wa hodou-o mizu-de maki-tsukushi-ta John-top sidewalk-acc water-with sprinkle-exhaust-past ‘John sprinkled the sidewalk completely with water’

This is because maki-tsukusu simply means “to sprinkle-exhaust”, and it is left open what entity is exhausted. The maki-tsukusu in the de variant syntax indicates that the surface is exhaustively covered, as just seen. With the maki-tsukusu in the ni variant frame, however, it is the substance that is exhausted. This point can be corroborated by attaching zenbu (‘‘whole’’) and seeing what entity is exhausted. (58) a.

John-wa mizu-o hodou-ni zenbu maki-tsukusi-ta John top water acc pavement on all sprinkle-exhaust past ‘John sprinkled all the water completely on the pavement’



Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

b. John-wa hodou-o mizu-de zenbu maki-tsukusi-ta John top pavement acc water with whole sprinkle-exhaust past ‘John sprinkled the whole pavement completely with water’

In (58a) the whole water is used up, while in (58b) the whole pavement is covered. Furthermore, the maki-tsukusu in the ni variant frame cannot be followed by a continuation that says that the substance is not completely used, as in (59a). (59) joro o tsukatte niwa ni mizu o maki-tsukushita watering pot acc by using garden loc water acc sprinkle-exhaust ‘I completely sprinkled out the water on the garden with a watering pot.’ a. *joro ni wa mada mizu ga nokotte-iru. watering pot loc top still water nom left be ‘Some water is still left in the watering pot.’ b. niwa ni wa mada mizu ga kakatte-inai tokoro ga aru garden loc top still water nom pour neg place nom be ‘Part of the garden is still left unwatered.’

On the other hand, the maki-tsukusu in the de variant frame cannot be followed by a continuation indicating that some part of the surface is not covered, as in (60b). (60) joro o tsukatte niwa o mizu de maki-tsukushita watering pot acc by using garden acc water with sprinkle-exhaust ‘I completely sprinkled the garden with water using a watering pot.’ a.

joro ni wa mada mizu ga nokotte-iru. watering pot loc top still water nom left be ‘Some water is still left in the watering pot.’

b.  *niwa ni wa mada mizu ga kakatte-inai tokoro ga aru garden loc top still water nom pour neg place nom be ‘Part of the garden is still left unwatered.’

Consequently, the ni variant of maki-tsukusu is accounted for as follows. The complex verb maki-tsukusu means “to exhaust by sprinkling a liquid over a surface”, as before. But since it is the liquid that is exhausted this time, maki-tsukusu comes to mean “to exhaust a liquid by sprinkling the liquid over a surface.” (Figure 12) The verbal scene thus obtained describes a change of location, fully in accord with the semantics of the construction sanctioning a ni variant. Another thing to note is that -tsukusu suffixation is not very productive, as seen in 11.1.2. While some resulting verbs may manage to mean “to cover/fill”, thereby assuming the de variant syntax, the whole process seems to be severely constrained. First, the “germ” of covering/filling must be present in the verb meaning. That is, the verbal action must somehow involve occupying a surface

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

(or a container), like maku (‘‘sprinkle’’) and haru (‘‘put.up’’). If the verbal meaning is almost exclusively concerned with moving a substance into/onto a location, like sosogu (‘‘pour’’), tsugu (‘‘pour’’), and tsukeru (‘‘attach’’), then -tsukusu suffixation does not help as in (61). VP: mizu-o hodou-ni maki-tsukusu

mizu-o

hodou-ni

maki-tsukusu ‘exhaust sth by sprinkling a liquid onto a surface’ maku

-tsukusu ‘exhaust by V-ing’

Figure 12.  The composition of mizu-o hodou-ni maki-tsukusu.

(61) a.  ?*koppu-o mizu-de sosogi-tsukusu glass acc water with pour-exhaust ‘pour the glass completely with water’ b. ?*koppu-o mizu-de tsugi-tsukusu glass acc water with pour-exhaust ‘pour the glass completely with water’ c. *kabe-o penki-de tsuke-tsukusu wall acc paint with attach-exhaust ‘attach the wall completely with paint’

This is not surprising, considering that the “cover” semantics is not directly contributed by -tsukusu, but rather is a consequence of exhausting a location entity. If the verbal action does not involve exerting force over a surface, there is nothing to be exhausted by way of covering in the first place. Second, in order for -tsukusu suffixation to work, some sizable space is necessary. This can be seen by attaching -tsukusu to verbs that can appear in the de variant frame. Nuru (“smear”), haru2 (“put.up”), maku (“wind”), and umeru (“bury”) can be suffixed with -tsukusu without affecting the acceptability.



(62) a.

Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

kabe-o penki-de nuri-tsukusu wall acc paint with smear-exhaust ‘smear up the wall with paint’

b. kabe-o posutaa-de hari-tsukusu wall acc poster with do.up-exhaust ‘do up the wall with posters’ c.

ude-o houtai-de maki-tsukusu arm acc band age with wind-exhaust ‘wind up the arm with bandage’

(63) ana-o gomi-de ume-tsukusu hole acc trash with bury-exhaust ‘fill up and bury the hole with trash’

But tsumeru (“stuff ”) and mabusu (“coat”) do not sound good when they are accompanied by -tsukusu. (64) a.  ??hako-o ichigo-de tsume-tsukusu box acc strawberry with stuff-exhaust ‘stuff up the box with strawberries’ b.  ??aburaage-o gohan-de tsume-tsukusu deep-fried tofu acc rice with stuff-exhaust ‘stuff up the deep-fried tofu with rice’ c.  ??ana-o nendo-de tsume-tsukusu opening acc clay with stuff-exhaust ‘stuff up the opening with clay’ (65) ??mochi-o kinako-de mabushi-tsukusu rice cake acc soybean flour with coat-exhaust ‘coat up the rice cake with soybean flour’

This seems to be because the location entity is rather small in (64) and (65). Third, -tsukusu generally cannot be attached to already complex units. Thus moritsukeru (“dish up”), yamamori-ni suru (“heap up”), and yamazumi-ni suru (‘‘pile up’’) do not sound acceptable when they are suffixed with -tsukusu. (66) a.  ?*sara-o gohan-de moritsuke-tsukusu plate acc rice with dish up-exhaust ‘dish up completely the plate with rice’ b.  ??sara-o gohan-de yamamori-ni shi-tsukusu plate acc rice with mountain-high-heap do-exhaust ‘heap up completely the plate with rice’

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

c. ??tsukue-o hon-de yamazumi-ni shi-tsukusu desk acc book with mountain-high-pile do-exhaust ‘pile up completely the desk with books’

Evdently, this is due to processing difficulty. The unacceptability of the following sentences seems to be explainable similarly. (67) a. ?*kabe-o penki-de fukitsuke-tsukusu wall acc paint with spray-exhaust ‘spray the wall completely with paint’ b. ?*rooka-o hako-de tsumiage-tsukusu corridor acc boxes with pile-exhaust ‘pile the corridor completely with boxes’ c. ?*hondana-o hon-de tsumekomi-tsukusu shelves acc books with cram-exhaust ‘cram the shelves completely with books’ d. ?*niguruma-o hoshikusa-de tsumi-tsukusu wagon acc hay with load-exhaust ‘load the wagon completely with hay’

To sum up, some verbs (maku (“sprinkle”) and haru2 (“put.up”)) may acceptably appear in the de variant frame when they are suffixed with -tsukusu, precisely because the resulting, complex verb may describe a covering scene. But -tsukusu is far from a grammatical morpheme specifically dedicated to turning a nonalternating verb into an alternating one. FMT’s treatment of -tsukusu suffixation is quite misleading in this respect. Overemphasizing the role of morphological derivation in Japanese hinders, rather than promotes, a proper understanding of the language. 11.4.3  -tsukeru Essentially the same point can be made by examining another suffix in Japanese which is observed to affect the possibility of alternation, i.e., -tsukeru (“attach”). As already seen, nuru (“smear”) and maku (“wind”) alternate between the two variants. When these verbs are suffixed with -tsukeru, however, only the ni variant is acceptable. (68) a.

John-wa kabe-ni penki-o nuri-tsuke-ta John-top wall-loc paint-acc smear-attach-past ‘John smear-attached paint on the wall’

b. *John-wa kabe-o penki-de nuri-tsuke-ta John-top wall-acc paint-with smear-attach-past ‘John smear-attached the wall with paint’



(69) a.

Chapter 11.  The locative alternation in Japanese 

Mary-wa ude-ni houtai-o maki-tsuke-ta Mary-top arm-loc bandage-acc wind-attach-past ‘Mary wind-attached the bandage around the arm’

b. *Mary-wa ude-o houtai-de maki-tsuke-ta Mary-top arm-acc bandage-with wind-attach-past ‘Mary wind-attached the arm with a bandage’

It may appear, then, that -tsukeru suffixation has the effect of hindering the alternation. But this is not the case. As Kishimoto (2001b: 62–63) observes, kazaritsukeru (“decorate-attach”) can appear in both of the frames. (70) a.

John-wa kabe-ni hana-o kazari-tsuke-ta John-top wall-loc flower-acc decorate-attach-past ‘John decorate-attached a flower to the wall’

b. John-wa kabe-o hana-de kazari-tsuketa John-top wall-acc flower-with decorate-attach-past ‘John decorate-attached the wall with a flower’

This apparently puzzling behavior of –tsukeru suffixation ceases to be a problem once we realize that nuri-tsukeru (“smear-attach”) and maki-tsukeru (“wind-attach”) can be translated into English using a means paraphrase, as in (71). (71) a. nuri-tsukeru = ‘attach by smearing’ b. maki-tsukeru = ‘attach by winding’

That is, these verbs are instances of what Matsumoto (1996c) calls Means Compounds, where “the case marking and the grammatical function of the arguments of the compounds are identical with those of V2.” (Matsumoto 1996c: 216) Given that tsukeru as a lexical verb can appear in the ni variant frame alone, as in (72), it is only natural that nuri-tsukeru (“smear-attach”) and maki-tsukeru (“wind-attach”) should inherit this property of tsukeru and occur in the ni variant frame alone. (72) a.

botan-o fuku-ni tsukeru button acc clothes loc attach ‘attach a button to the clothes’

b. ?*fuku-o botan-de tsukeru clothes acc button with attach ‘attach the clothes with buttons’

By contrast, -tsukeru in kazari-tsukeru serves a different role. Kazari-tsukeru cannot be translated as in (73), for it does not mean that the attaching is achieved via the decorating. (73) kazari-tsukeru ≠ ‘attach by decorating’

 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach

Rather, the attaching and the decorating are one and the same activity. Matsumoto (1996c) observes that there are several left-headed compounds involving -tsukeru, as in (74). (74)

tsukeru ‘hard, harshly’ (