Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Result Complementarity

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 93)

Abstract

We investigate the English verbs climb and cut, cited as counterexamples to manner/result complementarity: the proposal that verbs lexicalize either manner or result meaning components, but not both. Once their lexicalized meaning is identified and distinguished from contextually determined elements of meaning, cut and climb conform to manner/result complementarity. We show that cut is basically a result verb, with a prototypical manner often inferred. However, as it lexicalizes a result prototypically brought about in a certain manner, some uses simply lexicalize this manner. Crucially, in manner uses, the result component drops out, consistent with manner/result complementarity. In contrast, climb is essentially a manner verb. Once its lexicalized manner is accurately identified and distinguished from meaning contributed by context, the upward direction associated with many uses can be shown to arise from inference. However, climb has some restricted uses which lexicalize a result. Importantly, on these uses, the manner component is lost. With both verbs, then, the manner-only and result-only uses instantiate different, though related, senses of the relevant verb, with each sense conforming to manner/result complementarity.

Keywords

Reference Object Result Verb Direct Object Upward Direction Manner Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank audiences at Brown University, Humboldt University, the University of Alicante, the Conference on Concept Types and Frames, and the twenty-first Annual Conference of IATL for stimulating questions and discussion. We also are grateful to two reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of the paper. This work was supported by ISF grant 370/07 to Malka Rappaport Hovav.

References

  1. Arsenijević, Boban. 2010. On the syntactic nature of manner-incorporation, unpublished ms. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  2. Beavers, John. 2008. Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, eds. Johannes Dölling, and Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow, 245–265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2007. Morpholexical transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics 18:153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense II: the normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cifuentes Férez, Paula. 2007. Human locomotion verbs in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies 7: 117–136.Google Scholar
  6. Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Toward a descriptive framework of spatial deixis. In Speech, place and action, eds. Robert J. Jarvella, and Wolfgang Klein. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Geuder, Wilhelm. 2009. Descendre en grimpant: une étude contrastive de l’interaction entre déplacement et manière de mouvement. Langages 175:123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geuder, Wilhelm, and Matthias Weisgerber. 2008. “Manner of movement and the conceptualization of force”, slides, Journée d’étude “Il’y a manière et manière”, Université d’artois, Arras, France.Google Scholar
  9. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Goldberg, Adele E. 2010. Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, eds. Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, and Ivy Sichel, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Guerssel, Mohamed, Kenneth Hale, Mary Laughren, Beth Levin, and Josie. White Eagle. 1985. A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. In Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity, 48–63. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  12. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and transitivity, eds. Bernard Comrie, and Maria Polinsky, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy, and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. SALT 9:127–144.Google Scholar
  14. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1985. Multiple subcategorization and the theta-criterion: the case of climb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy, Christopher. 2001. Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy 24:33–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kennedy, Christopher, and Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: the adjectival core of verbs of variable telicity. In Adjectives and adverbs in semantics and discourse, eds. Louise McNally, and Christopher Kennedy, 156–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81:345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In Complex predicates, eds. Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells, 473–499. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, and John Beavers. 2012. Manner and result in roots of verbal meaning, Linguistic Inquiry 43:331–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: a lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41:123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2006. Constraints on the complexity of verb meaning and VP structure. In Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka, eds. Hans-Martin Gärtner, Regine Eckardt, Renate Musan, and Barbara Stiebels. (http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/material/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka/).
  25. Levison, Libby. 1993. The topic is open. The Penn Review of Linguistics 17:125–135.Google Scholar
  26. Mateu, Jaume, and Víctor Acedo-Matellán. 2011. The manner/result complementarity revisited: a syntactic approach, Research Report GGT-11-02, Grup de Gramática Teórica, Department de Filologia Catalana, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona. (Online at http://webs2002.uab.es/clt/publicacions/reports/pdf/GGT-11-02.pdf).
  27. McBride, Christopher J., and Raymond P. Henry. 1989. Effects of temperature on climbing behavior of littorina irrorata: on avoiding a hot foot. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 14:93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McClure, William. 1990. A lexical semantic explanation for unaccusative mismatches. In Grammatical relations: a cross-theoretical perspective, eds. Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell, and Errapel Mejías-Bikandi, 305–318. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Ramchand, Gillian C. 1997. Aspect and predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors, eds. Miriam Butt, and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Crosslinguistic and theoretical approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. Susan Rothstein, 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, eds. Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, and Ivy Sichel, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2012. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation, to appear. In The theta system: argument structure at the interface, eds. Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization, eds. Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van der Leek, Frederike. 1996. The English conative construction: a compositional account. CLS 32:363–378.Google Scholar
  37. Zlatev, Jordan, and Peerapat Yangklang. 2004. A third way to travel: the place of Thai in motion-event typology. In Relating events in narrative 2: typological and contextual perspectives, eds. Sven Strömqvist, and Ludo Verhoeven, 159–190. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics, Faculty of HumanitiesThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations