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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On our approach manner/result complementarity emerges because manner and result roots are compatible with distinct event schema. Alternate approaches are possible. For example, Mateu and Acedo-Matellán (2011) propose that manner/result complementarity emerges from properties of the syntactic configurations roots are found in, which for them approximate what we call event schema. On this approach, the roots themselves are not classified as manner or result, a move that Mateu and Acedo-Matellán see as preferable because it avoids redundancy that they find inherent in our approach.
- 2.
We distinguish between what we term a verb’s ‘contextually associated’ meaning and its ‘conventionally associated’ meaning. We use the first term to refer to those elements of a verb’s meaning that are understood from its use in a particular sentence, derived from the specific arguments it takes in the sentence and also from the more general discourse context in which the sentence is used. We intend the second term to refer to those inferences that are associated with a sentence using that verb outside of any particular context. A verb’s conventionally associated meaning is essentially that represented by a prototypical instance of the event described by the verb, such as opening a can with a can-opener rather than, say, by poking holes around the top with some sharp-bladed instrument or cleaning a floor with a broom or mop rather than, say, by reciting a magic spell. As Rosch (1978:43) points out, prototypes are essentially a reflection of our default expectations in a particular context. Thus, the two notions “conventionally associated” and “contextually associated” are ultimately related.
- 3.
In particular, Koontz-Garboden and Beavers (2012) argue that verbs of cooking and verbs of manner of death represent counterexamples to manner/result complementarity. Nevertheless, we believe that they do not adequately distinguish between what the verbs lexicalize and what listeners know from the use of these verbs in context, though this is necessary to fully resolve the status of these verbs. Our own sense is that the verbs in both classes are somewhat heterogeneous, containing both manner and result verbs, as well as a few verbs, which are polysemous, with distinct manner and result senses, as we argue here for cut and climb. In fact, Arsenijević (2010) presents arguments that verbs of manner of death do not counterexemplify manner/result complementarity.
- 4.
A reviewer asks whether cut does lexicalize manner, proposing that otherwise there is no way to distinguish a cut entity from a torn one. We disagree. We believe that the actions denoted by two verbs give rise to distinct results: that is, it is possible to tell a cut edge from a torn one. Consider, for instance, a piece of bread that is cut from a loaf and a piece that is torn from a loaf.
- 5.
In this respect, cut contrasts with verbs which really lexicalize an instrument and not a result, such as knife, rake, and shovel.
- 6.
As a reviewer notes, the (a) and (b) sentences in (12), which were the only examples cited in an earlier version of this paper, include PPs specifying a sharp edge, which cuts the rope. Although the preponderance of examples involving ropes and comparable entities involve such PPs, some examples lack them, such as those cited as the (c) and (d) sentences of (12). Such PPs are occasionally found with more prototypical causative alternation verbs, such as break in The stick broke against the rock; however, it seems that such PPs do not have to be expressed or even implied with break, as they are with cut. We have also found anticausative uses of cut with the XP loose, as in The tow rope cut loose. We leave further investigation of the factors licensing such anticausative uses and their significance for future research.
- 7.
A question that arises is whether there are transitive uses of cut which illustrate its manner sense. A reviewer suggests that Terry cut a hole in the ice might exemplify such a use. In fact, in this example the object is not subcategorized by cut, a property which we take to be a hallmark of manner verbs (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998). We leave it for future research to determine whether this example truly instantiates a transitive manner use. If such uses turn out not to exist, their absence will need an explanation.
- 8.
A more precise characterization of the manner may be in terms of resistance to an ambient force, because it is possible to come up with examples set in space, say, where gravity is not at issue, as in After the space walk, the astronaut climbed back into the space capsule. Sometimes notions of effort and slowness have also been said to be part of climb’s manner. We believe these notions are not part of the verb’s entailed meaning, but are contextually understood, perhaps because exerting a force against gravity is effortful and may require moving slowly and with difficulty.
- 9.
Mateu and Acedo-Matellán (2011) argue that these uses are not manner uses based primarily on data from Catalan and Dutch. We are reluctant to draw a conclusion about English based on data from another language since there could be subtle but crucial differences in meaning between purported translation equivalents; see, for example, McClure’s (1990) discussion of the Italian and Dutch translation equivalents of English blush.
- 10.
A reviewer questions the acceptability of these examples and wonders if there are dialectal differences or changes in the usage of the verb climb. Determining this is beyond the scope of this paper; what matters here is that such uses do exist for at least some speakers.
- 11.
If climbing is so strongly associated with upward movement, then it might be expected to be associated with upward movement without clambering for animates, just as cut is associated with either a result only or a manner only for the same choice of argument. Although this might be attributable to a lack of conventionalization, there might be other reasons why this has not happened. There could be a blocking effect given the existence of inherently directed motion verbs like rise and ascend, which lexicalize upward motion. It may also be easier for a meaning to shift from result to manner than from manner to result: an entity that ends up in a result state plays a large part in determining the manner in which the state is achieved, but the theme of a motion event does not restrict its final destination to the same extent. Even with the verb climb, although it may be inferred that the theme moves, the actual goal of movement cannot be inferred, especially in the absence of a reference object.
- 12.
Despite the many behavioral similarities, slice does differ from cut in one respect: it seems very difficult to get an anticausative use of this verb. We suspect that the anticausative use is precluded because of properties of the action of slicing itself, but this will need to be verified through additional investigation of this verb.
References
Arsenijević, Boban. 2010. On the syntactic nature of manner-incorporation, unpublished ms. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
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.
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2007. Morpholexical transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics 18:153–177.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense II: the normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cifuentes Férez, Paula. 2007. Human locomotion verbs in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies 7: 117–136.
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.
Geuder, Wilhelm. 2009. Descendre en grimpant: une étude contrastive de l’interaction entre déplacement et manière de mouvement. Langages 175:123–139.
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.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy, and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. SALT 9:127–144.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1985. Multiple subcategorization and the theta-criterion: the case of climb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:271–295.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2001. Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy 24:33–70.
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.
Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81:345–381.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In Complex predicates, eds. Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells, 473–499. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, and John Beavers. 2012. Manner and result in roots of verbal meaning, Linguistic Inquiry 43:331–369.
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: a lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41:123–151.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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/).
Levison, Libby. 1993. The topic is open. The Penn Review of Linguistics 17:125–135.
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).
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.
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.
Ramchand, Gillian C. 1997. Aspect and predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
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.
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.
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.
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 Press
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization, eds. Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
van der Leek, Frederike. 1996. The English conative construction: a compositional account. CLS 32:363–378.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levin, B., Hovav, M.R. (2013). Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Result Complementarity. In: Arsenijević, B., Gehrke, B., Marín, R. (eds) Studies in the Composition and Decomposition of Event Predicates. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 93. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5982-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5983-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)