Arguing our way to the Direct Object Restriction on English resultatives

Jaume Mateu Fontanals

(Universitat Oberta de Catalunya / Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

[email protected]

Abstract

Drawing on Hoekstra's (1988f.) work on so-called 'Small Clause Results' and Marantz's

(1992) work on the way-construction and its relation to resultative constructions, in this article

I argue my way to the conclusion that the so-called 'Direct Object Restriction' (DOR) on

English resultatives must be regained, despite Rappaport Hovav & Levin's (2001) claims to

the contrary. Firstly, I review some of the main properties of resultative constructions that

appear to motivate the syntactic approach, whose main descriptive tenet is the DOR. In

particular, I show that the present analysis of the conflation process involved in the formation

of complex resultatives allows us to offer an adequate explanation of their syntactic

properties. Secondly, I put forward a relational syntactic and semantic analysis of the so-

called way-construction. In particular, I show that the present analysis help us understand why

the DOR holds for this idiomatic resultative-like construction as well (contra Jackendoff

1990f.). Finally, I deal with some exceptional cases put forward by Verspoor (1997) and

Wechsler (1997), reviewed by Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001), which appear to contradict

the DOR.

1. The DOR on English resultatives


A preliminary draft of this paper was presented at the 17th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop,
held at the University of Iceland (August 9 th-10th, 2002, Reykjavík). I am grateful to the audience for insightful
comments and observations. Special thanks go to Marcel den Dikken (City University of New York) and Heidi
Harley (University of Arizona) for their useful suggestions and comments on Dutch and English data,
respectively. Needless to say, all possible errors are my own.
The research presented in this paper was also partially funded by the projects BFF2000-0403-C02-01
(Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología), 2001 SGR00150 (Generalitat de Catalunya) and IR-226 (IN3/UOC:
project INTERLINGUA).

1
The basic tenet of a number of syntactic accounts of English resultatives is an important

generalization concerning the distribution of resultative XPs: 1 result XPs in English are

invariably predicated of NPs in object position (cf. Simpson 1983), 2 whether or not these NPs

are arguments of the verb heading the construction. Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) called

this generalization the D(irect) O(bject) R(estriction).

For example, the minimal pair in (1) is nicely accounted for by the DOR. Clearly, (1b)

cannot mean that John got tired as a result of hammering on the metal. If anything, tired is

interpreted as a depictive predicate: i.e., John hammered on the metal when he was tired.

(1) a. John hammered the metal flat.

b. *John hammered the metal tired (*on the resultative reading)

More interestingly, Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) argued that contrasts like those

in (2) support the syntactic encoding of unaccusativity in English.3

(2) a. John laughed *(himself) silly.

b. The metali was hammered ti flat.

c. The garage doori rumbles ti open.4

d. The riveri froze ti solid.

1
Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995: 34) define a resultative phrase as follows: "It is an XP that denotes
the state achieved by the referent of the NP it is predicated of as a result of the action denoted by the verb in the
resultative construction".
2
As shown below, such a descriptive statement is to be translated into a more explanatory one in the
context of Hoekstra's (1988, 1992) theory of Small Clauses: i.e., a result XP is invariably predicated of the inner
subject of a Small Clause (cf. also Mateu (2001b) for relevant discussion).
But see Li (1990), Huang (1992), Kim & Maling (1997), among others, where the DOR has been called
into question for other languages (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Finnish, etc.).
3
For other classic syntactic approaches to the resultative construction and its relation to the Unaccusative
Hypothesis, see Simpson (1983) or Hoekstra (1984f), among others.
4
The example (2c) is taken from Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001: 768; ex. 5b).

2
 The verbs in (2c-d), which may have result XPs predicated directly of their subjects,

are argued to be unaccusative, their surface/derived subjects being analyzed as underlying

objects. The same holds for the example (2b), since the passive is analyzed as an unaccusative

construction. By contrast, those verbs that cannot have result XPs predicated directly of their

subjects are unergative, requiring reflexive pronouns as objects to satisfy the DOR (e.g., cf.

(2a)). Following Simpson (1983), Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995: 35) pointed out that "the

fake reflexive NP could be viewed as a syntactic device for allowing a resultative phrase to be

interpreted as it if were predicated of the subject of an unergative verb, while still conforming

to the DOR".

On the other hand, Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) appealed to the Case theory in

order to explain the contrast between (3a,b) and (3c,d): the postverbal NPs in (3a,b) receive

Case from the unergative verb, and a semantic role form the result XP (cf. also Hoekstra

1988). By contrast, unaccusative verbs are not found in the 'nonsubcategorized NP

intransitive-based pattern', as they are not Case-assigners (cf. (3c-d)).

(3) a. The dog barked the chickens awake.

b. They talked us into a stupor.

c. *The river frozed the fish dead.

d. *The ice melted the floor clean.

However, Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001) have recently claimed that all those

previous syntactic explanations can be said to vanish into thin air because of the existence of

examples like those in (4), where the directional XP is apparently predicated of the subject

NP. Quite crucially, these examples have led them to abandon the main tenet of their syntactic

approach, i.e, the DOR:5 drawing mainly on data from Wechsler (1997) and Verspoor (1997),
5
In their previous syntactic approach, Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995: 35) acknowledged that "we are
not aware of any counterexamples to the DOR that involve transitive verbs".

3
Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001) argue that their 1995 syntactic approach to resultatives

must be abandoned in favor of their 2001 non-syntactic event structure account.6

(4) a. The wise men followed the star out of Bethlehem.

b. The sailors managed to catch a breeze and ride it clear of the rocks.

c. John danced mazurkas across the room.

d. The children played leapfrog across the park.

Exs. (a,b) from Wechsler (1997); exs. (c,d) from Verspoor (1997),

apud Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001: 770)

Contra Rappaport Hovav & Levin’s (2001) claims, I will argue that the

incompatibility of the exceptional data in (4) with the DOR is merely illusory: the examples

in (4) can be argued to involve adjunct PPs. Moreover, concerning Wechsler's (1997) follow-

6
Basically, see Rappaport Hovav & Levin's (2001: 784-790) section 4: "Which argument of a transitive
verb is the result XP predicated of". Their event structure account is based on two important generalizations:
(i) The result XP is predicated of the NP denoting the argument of a transitive verb which is the recipient
of a transmitted force, if there is one.
(ii) When there is no NP denoting an entity which is the recipient of a transmitted force, the result XP is
free to be predicated of the subject.
It is then the case that NPs denoting entities which are recipients of transmitted force are usually
expressed as direct objects, which is why most of resultatives based on transitive verbs involve results XPs
predicated of direct objects, as implicitly encoded in the DOR. This notwithstanding, when a transitive verb does
not describe the transmission of force towards the entity denoted by its object, a result XP can be predicated of
its subject (cf. the examples in (4)).
Furthermore, they point out that "the force recipient approach receives support from the observation that
verbs whose objects are incremental themes, but not force recipients (e.g., memorize, study, read, sing) cannot
appear with object-predicated result XPs" (p. 790). However, notice that there is an important flaw of their
account here: their analysis appears to predict that sentences containing these verbs should be possible with
subject-predicated result XPs. For example, as it stands, their analysis appears to predict that examples such as
those in (iii) should be grammatical, contrary to fact:
(iii) a. * Theyi read somnipherous poems asleepi
b. *Theyi sang somnipherous songs asleepi
Indeed, their following prediction turns out to be not empirically accurate: "(...) with noncanonical
transitive verbs, which lack an NP denoting an entity that is the force recipient, the result XP is free to be
predicated of the subject". This prediction appears to be correct for the exceptional examples in (4), but not for
examples like the ones in (iii).
All in all, the relevant conclusion seems then to be that, despite Rappaport Hovav & Levin's (2001)
insights concerning the event structure semantics of resultatives, the syntactic restriction (i.e, the DOR) turns out
to be necessary to avoid cases like those in (iii). This accepted, the next step is to try to explain why the
exceptional data in (4) appear to violate the DOR.

4
type sentences, I will show that there is evidence for considering the relevant problematic

examples as unaccusative constructions.

Moreover, contra Jackendoff (1990f.), I will argue that the so-called one's way-

construction (cf. some examples in (5)) can be provided with the same relational syntactic and

semantic analysis that can be applied to "normal" transitive resultative constructions: i.e.,

although the directional PP is apparently predicated of the subject NP, as argued by

Jackendoff (1990f), it can however be shown to be predicated of the way NP, as predicted by

the DOR. All in all, it will turn out to be that the validity of the DOR-based approach to

English resultatives must be regained.

(5) a. Morris joked his way into the meeting.

b. Paco fandangoed his way out of the room.

c. Pat slept her way to the top.

Before providing my present analysis of complex resultative constructions, let me

make some relevant remarks concerning Hoekstra's (1988) analysis of Small Clause Results,

which is the starting point of my present l-syntactic one (cf. Hale & Keyser 1997; 1998).

2. Parametrizing Hoekstra's Small Clause Results

In this section I will not review the main theoretical and empirical advantages of Hoekstra's

analysis, which I assume here (see Mateu 2001b): e.g., consider some relevant examples of

Small Clause Results in (6).

(6) a. Johni danced [SC ti into the room]

b. Johni danced [SC ti free of his captors]

5
 c. John danced [SC the puppet into the room]

d. John danced [SC his feet sore]

e. John danced [SC the night away]

Here I will limit myself to pointing out one problem here: Hoekstra’s theory of

SCR<esult>s, as it stands, cannot be granted explanatory status yet. In particular, notice that

Hoekstra did not address the crosslinguistic variation involved: crucially, no explanation is

provided concerning the so-called “directionality/resultativity parameter” (see Snyder 1995;

Mateu 2001a,b; Mateu & Rigau 2002). For example, what prevents Romance speakers from

forming SCRs like those in (6)? That is, why is it the case that the Romance verb

corresponding to dance cannot take a SCR complement? To be sure, those questions can be

said to be “innocuous” for constructionalists like Jackendoff but they should not be so for

followers of Hoekstra’s syntactic approach. For example, according to Jackendoff, it is simply

the case that Romance languages lack the relevant “correspondence rule”, in particular his

Verb Subordination Archi-construction depicted in (7), which is said to account for

resultative(-like) constructions like those in (6).

(7) 'Verb Subordination Archi-construction' (sic)

a. [VP V....]

b. ‘act (by) V-ing’

Jackendoff (1997b: exs. (101); p. 555)

In Mateu (2001b) I argue that Hoekstra’s syntactic approach can be shown to be more

explanatory than Jackendoff’s semanticocentric approach if translated in Hale & Keyser's

(1998) l-syntactic terms. For example, I claim that the formation of complex telic Path of

6
motion constructions like the one in (6a) involves two different l-syntactic structures, the

main one being unaccusative (e.g., that in 8a), and the subordinate one being unergative (e.g.,

that in 8b). The unaccusative structure in (8a) is associated to the directed motion event (e.g.,

‘to GO into the room’), while the unergative structure in (8b) is associated to an activity, (e.g.,

‘to DO dance’).

(8) a. V1 b. V2

V1 P V2 N
GO DO dance
[Ø] N P [Ø]
John
P N
into (the) room

In particular, Hoekstra’s SCResult constituent is to be translated into Hale & Keyser’s

(1998) P projection, headed by a birelational telic ‘Path’ element (in their terms, a ‘terminal

coincidence relation’): it relates a ‘Figure’ (e.g., John) to a ‘Ground’ (e.g., the room).7

As pointed out in Mateu (2000, 2001a,b) and Mateu & Rigau's (2002) syntactic

account of Talmy's (1991) typological distinction between verb-framed vs. satellite-framed

languages, it is the satellite (i.e., non-conflating) nature of the P(ath) element in (8a) what

precisely allows the unergative verbal head in (8b) to be merged into the phonologically null

unaccusative verb in (8a). Being inspired by an important insight from Hale & Keyser (1997),

I argue that the formation of the complex argument structure corresponding to (6a) involves a

‘generalized transformation’ (cf. Chomsky 1995).8

7
For expository reasons, I have simplified the analysis of the P projection: into involves conflation of a
'central coincidence relation' (i.e., in) with a 'terminal coincidence relation' (i.e., to).
8
Cf. Hale & Keyser (1997: 228-229):
(i) "The problem which conflations of this type (<cf. that involved in (9): JM>) represent derives precisely
from the fact that they appear to embody two concurrent event-like components. We are used to just
one. It is tempting, and perhaps natural, to imagine that the argument structure of < John danced into

7
(9) V1

V1 P

V2 V1 N P
John
V2 N P N
dance into (the) room

By contrast, in verb-framed languages the conflation of the P(ath) element into the motion

V(erb) prevents the conflation process in (9) to be carried out (cf. Sp. John entró en la

habitación bailando 'John entered the room dancing').

Accordingly, the relevant typological distinction put forward by Talmy (1991) can be

expressed in the following l-syntactic terms:

(10) a. Verb-framed languages (e.g., Romance languages ("Romanglish" included)):

The relevant P(ath) is conflated into the motion V(erb): what corresponds to P

and what to V cannot be distinguished any longer; cf. John entered the room

dancing.

the room: JM> is in fact, a composite of the unergative structure, as in <(8b): JM>, and the structure
associated with change of location, as in <(8a): JM> (...) Such a composite might, for example, be
defined by means of a generalized transformation, substituting <(8b)> for the verb of <(8a)>".
One comment is in order here: Notice that the conflation analysis in (9) does not involve substitution, but rather
adjunction. It remains to be seen whether Hale & Keyser's analysis or the present one is more compatible with
Chomsky's actual framework. Be this as it may, I think that the final technical solution should not invalidate
Hale & Keyser's insight in (i) above, which I along with them take as a rather natural solution. I am in debt to
Luigi Rizzi and Marcel den Dikken for fruitful discussion regarding this point after my oral presentation of the
present paper.

8
 b. Satellite-framed languages: (e.g., Germanic languages): The relevant P(ath) is

not conflated into the motion V(erb) (i.e., P = satellite); cf. John danced into

the room.

Keeping this sketch on conflation processes in mind, in the next section I will show

that the validity of the DOR does not necessarily depend on the particular assumptions

reviewed in section 1 above.

3. The l-syntax of complex resultative constructions

Because of my adopting Hale & Keyser's (1998) framework, I do not want to argue that

examples like that in (11a) are to be ruled out by virtue of a pure syntactic constraint (e.g., the

DOR). Rather it is my claim that those two examples in (12) involve the very same l-syntactic

conflation process of a subordinate unergative verb (cf. V2 in 12b) into a phonologically null

main unaccusative verb (cf. V1 in 12a): the resulting complex argument structure is depicted in

(13).9

(11) a. # Johni laughed [SC ti sillyi] (cf. The garage doori rumbles [SC ti openi])

b. #Johni laughed [SC ti into the room] (cf. Johni danced [SC ti into the room])

ok
(12) #John laughed silly. vs. The garage door rumbles open.

a. V1 b. V2

9
See Mateu (2000f.) and Mateu & Rigau (2002) for the 'localistic' claim that the l-syntactic formation of
the non-primitive Adj(ectival) category involves a conflation process of a non-relational element (Y) into a
spatial relation (X). Such a conflation process accounts for both its relational or predicative character, which Adj
shares with P, and its nominal properties, which Adj shares with N (e.g., note that in some languages Adjs are
marked with nominal morphological case). But see Hale & Keyser (1998, 2002) for a different analysis of the
argument structure of Adjs. See also Mateu & Amadas (2001) for some relevant theoretical implications
concerning the fixed inventory of lexical categories provided by UG.

9
 V1 X V2 Z
GO DO {laugh/rumble}
[Ø] [Ø]
N X
John
(the) door
X Y
PATH
[Ø] {silly/open}

(13)
V1

V1 X

V2 V1 N X
John
(the) door
V2 Z X Y
{laugh/rumble} {silly/open}

I claim that the conceptual differences between laugh and rumble are fully opaque to

the syntactic operation, i.e., the conflation process. What is actually important is that these

verbal predicates are unergative.10 Accordingly, in principle I would have no problem with

accepting Wechsler’s (1997) explanation of the oddity of an example like #The dog barked

hoarse (cf. 14):

10
There appears to be an intuitive conceptual explanation of the relevant contrast: manner of motion verbs
like dance or verbs of sound like rumble can be argued to partake in an intrinsic relation with the inherently
directed motion event involved in the unaccusative construction, while verbs like laugh cannot (cf. also Levin &
Rappaport Hovav's (1995) descriptive generalization: only manner of motion verbs (e.g., dance, swim, walk,
etc.) and verb of sound (e.g., buzz, click, rumble, etc) can be "unaccusativized" in the presence of a result XP).
This notwithstanding, I want to claim that semantico-conceptual restrictions of this sort do not affect the
syntactic computation of examples like those in (11). When dealing with the (narrow) lexical-syntactic analysis
of unergative verbs, no distinction is to be made between {manner of motion verbs/verbs of sound} and the rest.
Accordingly, I propose that sequences like those in (11) are freely generated by the computational system, their
anomaly being detected in the interpretive semantic component (cf. Marantz's (1997, in prep.) architecture of
what he calls 'the encyclopedic component').

10
(14) a. Canonical Result Restriction (CRR)

A control resultative must represent a ‘canonical’ or ‘normal’ result state of an

action of the type denoted by the verb.

b. “*The dog barked hoarse is bad because hoarseness is not the canonical result

of barking –indeed there probably is no canonical result of barking. The dog

barked itself hoarse is acceptable because it is not a control resultative, so this

restriction does not apply <According to his terminology, the latter is an

E(xceptional) C(ase) M(arking) resultative: JM>. ”

Wechsler (1997: 310)

This said, one caveat is in order here: my recognizing that it is not syntax that is

involved in explaining the oddity of those examples in (11) does not prevent me from positing

a basic unaccusative structure for them (cf. (13)). In other words, I do not accept Wechsler's

(1997) claim that unaccusativity is not involved in the four examples in (11).

Next I would like to discuss another confusing point related to the DOR, which has to

do with the apparent insertion of a so-called 'fake reflexive object' (cf. (2a), repeated in (15a))

in order to preserve the DOR.

Contra Simpson (1983), I want to argue that the reflexive object in (15a) cannot be

regarded as a mere syntactic placeholder inserted in order to maintain the DOR. Rather I

would like to stress the fact that its semantic function is clear, since the theta role

corresponding to the reflexive object must be drawn from the internal specifier position of the

complex argument structure in (16). That is, both direct objects in (15) himself and the

speaker have the very same Figure/Theme role.

11
(15) a. John laughed himself silly.

b. The Germanic audience laughed the Romance speaker off the stage.

(16)
v

N v
Johni
(the) audience
v V

V X/P

V V N X/P
himselfi
(the)speaker
V N X/P Y/N
laugh [Ø] silly
off (the) stage

So far we can conclude that the subordinate argument structure involved in a conflation

process like that depicted in (16) must correspond to one of the unergative type (the unergative

use of transitive verbs included: e.g., They drank the pub dry).11 Let us then see what excludes

examples like those in (3c,d), repeated in (17a,b), which contain unaccusative verbs.

(17) a. *The river froze the fish dead.

b. *The ice melted the floor clean.

11
Notice then the happy coincidence between Hoekstra's (1992) aspectual restriction in (i) and Hale &
Keyser's (1998, 2002) l-syntactic analysis of verbs heading complex resultative constructions. Typically, an
unergative/"unergativized" verb expresses a stage level, dynamic, and not inherently bounded predicate. In short,
it expresses an activity (cf. Mateu 2001b for more discussion).
(i) “We can isolate the circumstances under which a resultative may be found: the predication must be
stage-level <(e.g., cf. *This enclyclopedist knowsindividual level [SC all books superfluous])> and dynamic
<(e.g., cf. *Medusa saw-dynamic [SC the hero into stone])>, but not inherently bounded (<e.g., cf. *The
psychopath killed+bounded [SC the village into a ghost town]>)”. Hoesktra (1992: 161-162)

12
 Notice that there would be no problem with the independently generated derivations in

(18a) and (18b), both being legitimate: the transitive syntactic argument structure in (18a)

corresponds to a 'caused change of state' (cf. The river killed the fish / The ice cleanned the

floor), while the unaccusative one in (18b) corresponds to a 'change of state' (cf. The river

froze / The ice melted)).

I want to argue that the complex argument structure involved in the examples in (17)

is not well-formed because the inner specifier of (18b) remains unlicensed. Quite importantly,

the conflation operation must always exhaust all the lexical material of the subordinate

argument structure: that is, nothing can be left behind. However, in (18b) the spec the

river/the ice is not affected by the conflation operation, that NP remaining in the air. In

contrast, notice such an "exhaustiveness condition" is accomplished when the conflation

operation affects a subordinate unergative argument structure (see (12-13)): crucially, both the

unergative verbal head and its non-relational nominal complement are affected by this

operation.

(18) a. b.

N v

13
(the) river
(the) ice
v V1 V2

V1 X1 V2 X2
[Ø]
{freezej/meltj}
N X1 N X2
(the) fish (the) river
(the) floor (the) ice
X2 Y2
X1 Y1 tj
tj
{deadi/cleani} ti

Quite interestingly, notice that the subtle contrast between (17) and (19) can be taken

as evidence for the present restriction: namely, only unergative verbs ('unergativized'

transitive verbs included) can act as subordinate predicates in the relevant conflation

operation. Concerning those examples in (19), my proposal is that roll and bounce are coerced

to be used there as unergative verbs (cf. okJohn {rolled/bounced} the markings off the floor

deliberately).12

(19) a. ?? The wagon rolled the rubber off its wheels.

b. ?? The ball bounced the markings off the floor.

exs. taken from Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001: 791)

12
See Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) for the proposal that agentive manner of motion verbs are
unergative, while non-agentive ones are unaccusative.
If my analysis is on the right track, notice moreover that no further aspectual explanation of the contrast
between (17) and (19) is needed (i.e., two delimiter XPs are involved in (17) but only one in (19)): in other
words, notice that Hale & Keyser's theory of l-syntax accounts for Tenny's (1994: 68) observation that an event
can be delimited only once in quite a direct way.

14
 To be sure, at first sight unaccusative resultatives like those in (20) could be taken as

counterexamples to the present syntactic restriction preventing unaccusative verbs from being

the subordinate predicate in the resultative construction.

(20) a. The potatoes fried crisp.

b. The juice froze solid.

c. The lobster boiled soft.

exs. from Rapoport (1999: ex. (47), p. 673)

However, following Pustejovsky (1991) and Rapoport (1999), here I will assume that

those result XPs in (20) (i.e., crisp, solid or soft) are added to predicates which lexically entail

the achievement of a result state and merely modify this state further. That is to say, those

resultative XPs in (20) are considered as adjunct modifiers of the final state encoded into the

verb. Accordingly, these examples cannot be considered as counterexamples to the present

syntactic restriction, since for example (20a) would be analyzed as involving a basic

unaccusative argument structure (i.e., that corresponding to The potatoes fried) plus an

adjunct modifying the result state.13

Quite interestingly, notice also that the present proposal (i.e., only unergative or

unergativized verbs act as subordinate l-syntactic predicates) allows us to explain Rappaport

Hovav & Levin's (1998: 103) observation in (21), which is exemplified in (22):
13
Alternatively, examples like (20c) could be argued to involve a conflation process of an unergative
eventive head (cf. Germ. Die Languste hat gekocht, lit.: 'the lobster HAS boiled') into a null unaccusative one
(cf. Germ. Die Languste ist weich gekocht, lit.: 'the lobster IS soft boiled '). That is to say, (20c) could be
analyzed as (13) above (cf. The garage door rumbles open), where the result XP is a true resultative predicate. It
remains then to be seen whether this alternative proposal could be extended to examples such as those in (20a,b).
Norberto Moreno (p.c.) has reminded me of the non-trivial consequences of Rapoport's (1999) proposal as far as
the crosslinguistic variation is concerned: if those APs in (20) are adjuncts, why are these examples impossible
in Romance? Quite interestingly, notice that the second proposal entertained in this note would explain it:
Romance languages do not present conflation processes of the type analyzed in (13) above. I leave this
promising topic for further research.

15
(21) "(...) the impressive flexibility of manner verbs with respect to argument expression

contrasts with the relative rigidity of result verbs."

(22) Sweep (manner verb)

a. Terry swept.

b. Terry swept the floor.

c. Terry swept the crumbs into the corner.

d. Terry swept the leaves off the sidewalk.

e. Terry swept the floor clean.

f. Terry swept the leaves into a pile.

Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998: 97-98; ex. (1))

Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998: 103) point out that manner verbs like scrub can

readily appear with a wide range of 'unselected objects', whereas results verbs like break

cannot. See the relevant contrasts in (23):14

(23) a. Cinderella scrubbed her fingers to the bone.

b. *The clumsy child broke his knuckles to the bone.

c. The child rubbed the tiredness out of his eyes.

d. *The clumsy child broke the beauty out of the vase.

14
According to Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998: 102),
(i) "in <(23a): JM> her fingers is a nonsubcategorized object since it is not the surface that is being
scrubbed. Although this sentence is understood to describe the scrubbing of a surface, the surface itself
is not mentioned. Thus, the sentence means that Cinderella scrubbed something, perhaps the floor, until
her fingers were raw; however, <(23b): JM> cannot have a parallel interpretation: the child broke many
things, and as a result of handling the broken things his knuckles were hurt".
For different analyses of so-called 'unselected object constructions', see Goldberg (1995), Spencer &
Zaretskaya (1998), Mateu (2001a) and McIntyre (2002), among others.

16
 Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998: 103; exs. (6)-(7))

The explanation of the contrasts in (23) is to be related to Rappaport Hovav & Levin's

important observation that activity verbs like sweep, but not change of state verbs like break,

can be typically used intransitively (I would rather prefer saying "unergatively" here): cf. the

relevant contrast in (24a) vs. (24b). Accordingly, the examples in (26) are explained in the

present framework as involving a conflation process of the subordinate unergative argument

structure in (27b) into the null main transitive verb in (27a). The resulting complex argument

structure is depicted in (28).

(24) a. Phil swept yesterday.

b. *Phil broke yesterday (*on the reading that Phil is Agent)

(25) a. (DP...) [V [V[Ø] X]]

b. (DP...) [V [V[Ø] SWEEP]] (meaning: (Phil) DO sweep)

c. *(DP...)[V [V[Ø] BREAK]] (meaning: (Phil) DO break)

(26) a. Cinderella scrubbed her fingers to the bone.

b. Phil swept the leaves off the sidewalk.

c. Phil swept the floor clean.

(27)
a. v

N v

17
 v V1 b. V2

V1 P/X V2 Z

[Ø] [Ø] {scrub/sweep}

z2 P/X
(her) fingers
(the) leaves
(the) floor P/X N/Y
to (the) bone
off (the) sidewalk
[Ø] [Y clean]

(28)

N v
Cinderella
Phil
v V1

V1 P/X

V2 V1 N P/X
(her) fingers
(the) leaves
V2 Z (the) floor P/X N/Y
{scrub/sweep} to (the) bone
off (the) sidewalk
clean

With all this theoretical background in mind concerning the conflation processes

involved in complex resultative constructions, let us now show how the present l-syntactic

account can shed light on the apparent problem that is involved in some examples that have

18
been said to contradict the DOR on resultative constructions, i.e., in those examples where a

directional XP is apparently predicated of the subject of a transitive construction. Firstly, in

section 4, I will provide an l-syntactic analysis of the so-called way-construction. Secondly, in

section 5, I will deal with Wechsler's (1997) and Verspoor's (1997) counterexamples to the

DOR, reviewed in Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001).

4. The way-construction and the DOR

The analysis of the way-construction has been argued to yield important conclusions

about the syntax-semantics interface.15 Some relevant examples of this semiproductive

idiomatic construction are given in (29).

(29) a. Morris joked his way into the meeting.

b. Paco fandangoed his way out of the room.

c. Pat slept her way to the top.

One of the most detailed analyses of the way-construction can be found in Jackendoff

(1990, 1992, 1997a). He argues that the obligatory directional PP is predicated of the subject

NP, the way NP being a non-meaningful object: hence it is not represented in the

C<onceptual> S<tructure> in (30).16 Crucially, notice then that it is (implicitly) assumed that

this resultative-like construction violates the DOR. In contrast, here I will argue that the

15
See Jackendoff (1990, 1992, 1997a), Marantz (1992), Tenny (1994), or Goldberg (1995), for different
theoretical analyses of this construction. In particular, it is interesting to note the radically different conclusions
drawn by Jackendoff (1992) and Marantz (1992) as a result of their pursuing different goals (see below for a
brief reappraisal of both accounts).
16
According to Jackendoff (1990: 285), "the status of predication is no longer a syntactic phenomenon at
all but a conceptual one". Needless it to say, with Hoekstra (1984f) and Hale & Keyser (1993f), among many
others, I strongly disagree with such a semanticocentric view (cf. Mateu & Amadas (2001) for discussion).

19
obligatory directional PP of the way-construction is to be better analyzed as being predicated

of the way NP.17 As a result, the DOR also holds for this resultative-like construction.18

(30) PS SS CS
aWd VPx GO ([X]α, [Path Y]z)

way Vy NP PPz BY ([Z (α)]y) x

NP+poss N
a
Jackendoff (1997a: 172)

According to Jackendoff (1997a: 172), the way-construction can be regarded as a

constructional idiom, listed in the lexicon with the structure depicted in (30). He points out

that the CS in (30) can be read as "Subject goes along Path designated by PP, by V-ing" [sic].

This said, let me make some critical remarks on Jackendoff’s analysis in (30):

Firstly, notice that, as it stands, Jackendoff’s claim that the V in the

S<yntactic>S<tructure> must be linked to the subordinate conceptual event introduced by the

operator BY, is not but a mere (though correct!) stipulation. That is to say, no explanation is

provided as to why this linking should be established this way. In contrast, recall that in

section 2 I showed that such a descriptive proposal is motivated by the basic morphosyntactic

17
Despite initial appearances, note that the directional PP cannot be analyzed as a modifier of the way-NP.
Quite interestingly, Goldberg (1995: 199) points out that the example in (i) "entails that Frank moved through
the created path out of the prison" (cf. (iii)). This motion sense is not necessarily entailed in (ii) (cf (iv)).
Crucially, notice that such an empirical observation is coherent with the fact that the directional PP is a modifier
of the direct object in (ii) but not in (i).
(i) Frank dug his way out of the prison.
(ii) Frank dug his escape route out of the prison.
(iii) # Frank dug his way out of the prison, but he hasn't gone yet.
(iv) Frank dug his escape route out of the prison, but he hasn't gone yet.
exs. (i-iv) from Goldberg (1995: 199)
Moreover, the following contrast in (v) points to the same conclusion (see Jackendoff (1992) for more
relevant discussion):
(v) Bill belched his way noisily out of the restaurant (cf. *Bill belched all the way noisily out of the
restaurant).
(vi) *Bill belched noisily his way out of the restaurant (cf. okBill belched noisily all the way out of the
restaurant). exs. (v-vi) taken from Jackendoff (1992: 162)
18
Indeed, the PP in (29) is felt to be predicated of the subject due to a syntactically transparent semantic
relation between the subject and the direct object. In fact, as noted by Goldberg (1995), the way NP can be
interpreted as an inalienably possessed NP (cf. the obligatory binding relation between the subject NP and the
way NP).

20
reason that distinguishes ‘satellite-framed’ languages like English from ‘verb-framed’

languages like Spanish (Talmy 1985, 1991): only the former languages allow the kind of

"non-canonical linking" involved in the way-construction, in telic path of motion

constructions like John danced into the room, or in complex resultative constructions like

Jaume talked us into a stupor.

Secondly, it appears to be the case that Jackendoff proposes a kind of “unaccusative

semantics” for the way-construction: GO is posited as the main semantic function. However, I

will claim that the way-construction has a causative-like meaning component, hence its being

a transitive construction (cf. infra). Finally, our considering the way-construction as a

causative construction will allow us to treat the way NP as a meaningful element, which

Jackendoff wrongly eliminates from his CS analysis in (30).

Keeping these previous critical remarks in mind, next let us show how the present l-

syntactic analysis of those conflation processes reviewed in sections 2 and 3 above, can be

argued to be adequate to explain how the intransitive verb in (29) comes to be integrated into

the idiomatic construction under study. In particular, I will emphasize how the conflation

operation of two different syntactic argument structures can be shown to account for the "non-

canonical linking" alluded to by Jackendoff (1997a: 172): cf. (30).

In accordance with my present analysis of complex resultative constructions like John

laughed himself silly (cf. (15a)-(16)), I will posit that the way-construction in (29a) Morris

joked his way into the meeting can also be argued to be the result of conflating two syntactic

argument structures. Notice then that in the present case we are not dealing with an

unaccusative structure expressing a change of location which is conflated with an unergative

structure expressing an activity (e.g., John danced into the meeting; cf. (8)-(9)), but with a

transitive structure expressing a caused change of location, the one depicted in (31a), which is

21
conflated with an unergative structure corresponding to the activity of doing joke(s): cf. (31b).

To put it in syntactically-based aspectual terms, the subordinate unergative verbal head

depicted in (31b), which is typically associated to an activity, is conflated into the null verbal

head of the main transitive argument structure depicted in (31a), the resulting complex

argument structure in (32) being associated to an accomplishment.

(31) a. b.
v

N v
Morrisi
v V1 V2

V1 P V2 N
[Ø] [Ø] joke

N P
(hisi) way

P N
into (the) meeting

(32) v

N v
Morrisi

v V1

V1 P

V2 V1 N P
(hisi) way

V2 N P N
joke into (the) meeting

22
 As noted above, I assume that the conflation process involving two argument

structures like those in (31a-b) can be argued to be carried out via the syntactic operation of

Merge, which has been said to be similar to a ‘generalized transformation’ (cf. note 9).

Crucially, due to the satellite (i.e., non-conflating) nature of the head into (cf. Talmy 1985,

1991), the phonologically null head of the transitive argument structure in (31a) is allowed to

be saturated by another independent argument structure object: e.g., the unergative structure

in (32b), which is in turn argued to be formed via the conflation of a non-relational element

into a verbal head (cf. Hale & Keyser 1993f). As a result of the adjunction process depicted in

(32), the phonologically full unergative verbal head provides the empty transitive one with

phonological content. Accordingly, notice that my analysis is compatible with Hale &

Keyser's (1998) proposal that the conflation process appears to be motivated by the following

reason: “empty phonological matrices must be eliminated from the morphosyntactic

representation of sentences” (p. 80).19

Given (32), it is then clear that the present analysis of the way-construction does not

violate the DOR, since the result phrase (i.e, into the meeting) is not predicated of the external

subject (i.e., Morris), as Jackendoff argues (cf. (30)), but of the internal 'subject' (i.e., his

way), namely, the specifier of the spatial projection encoded by P.

Quite interestingly, notice also that the l-syntactic analysis in (32) provides a

configurational representation to Marantz's (1992) insight in (33), which is lacking in his

descriptively oriented paper: indeed, the way NP can be interpreted as "transversing or

reaching" the goal NP on the syntactic basis that the former is the specifier of P (i.e., the

Figure/Theme), while the latter is the complement of P (i.e., the Ground). Moreover, (despite

appearances!), the external argument (i.e., Morris) is not to be intepreted as "Figure/Theme"

19
The result of the conflation process depicted in (32) gives a complex phrasal idiom: as a complex
syntactic object, it is generated by the computational system; as a complex "construction", it is to be licensed if
its idiosyncratic restrictions pointed out by Jackendoff (1992) and Goldberg (1995, 1997) are respected. See
Marantz (1997) for some interesting preliminary remarks concerning the relation between the generative
computational system and the non-generative encyclopedic component.

23
at the syntax-semantics interface (contra Jackendoff's semantic analysis in (30)), but rather as

the agent on the syntactic basis that it is the specifier of v (i.e., the Originator).20

(33) “The PP that follows the way NP serves as a resultative predicate on the way NP,

giving the reading that the way path transverses or reaches the location described by

the PP”. Marantz (1992: 180)

Moreover, it is important to realize that the non-trivial parallelism between the way-

construction and complex resultative constructions like John laughed himself silly, which was

already pointed out by Marantz (1992), is nicely accounted for by the present l-syntactic

analysis: cf. (32) with (15a/16): both direct objects the way NP and himself in (16) are

interpreted as the Figure of the change of {location/state}, while both resultative phrases into

the meeting and silly in (16) are interpreted as encoding the Ground. Finally, the external

argument is structurally interpreted as the Originator of the complex event. Accordingly, the

unproblematic or well-established causative analysis attributed to so-called 'fake resultatives'

should apply to the present construction with equal force (see Marantz (1992) for further

relevant discussion on this point).

Finally, to conclude this paper, let us deal with some counterexamples to the DOR

reviewed by Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001).

5. Regaining the DOR: Some counterexamples revisited

20
See Mateu & Amadas (2001) for relevant discussion on the relational semantics associated to Hale &
Keyser's l-syntactic structures.

24
 As noted in section 1, examples like those in (4), repeated in (34), led Levin &

Rappaport Hovav to abandon the main tenet of their 1995 syntactic approach to English

resultatives, i.e, the DOR:

(34) a. The wise men followed the star out of Bethlehem.

b. The sailors managed to catch a breeze and ride it clear of the rocks.

c. John danced mazurkas across the room.

d. The children played leapfrog across the park.

Exs. (a,b) from Wechsler (1997); exs. (c,d) from Verspoor

(1997), apud Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001: 770)

In this section, I will argue that the incompatibility of the exceptional data in (34) with

the DOR is merely illusory: the examples in (34) can be argued to involve adjunct PPs.

First, let us deal with Wechsler's (1997: 313) follow-type sentences. I want to argue

that these sentences fall into two basic syntactic types: the unaccusative type and the (truly)

transitive one. Quite interestingly, notice that there is evidence from Dutch showing the

unaccusativity of sentences like those in (35): e.g., cf. the auxiliary selection in (35a) and the

use of participle in prenominal position in (35b).

(35) a. De politie is de dief tot zijn huis gevolgd (Dutch)

the police IS the thief to his house followed

b. deze mij tot aan de deur gevolgde politieman

this me until the door followed policeman

ex. (35a) from Lieber & Baayen (1997: 791)

ex. (35b) from Hoekstra (1999: 76)

25
 Following den Dikken (p.c.), I will assume that three syntactic configurations can in

principle be assigned to a follow-type sentence. On the empirical basis of the data in (35), we

can posit an unaccusative configuration like that in (36a): the incorporation of an abstract

‘central coincidence relation’ (AFTER) into the unaccusative verb (GO) would be spelled out

as volgen/follow. On the other hand, when hebben (HAVE) is selected (i.e., when the true

transitive use is involved), two analyses are possible (details being omitted in (36)): in (36b)

the directional PP is an adjunct (e.g., it can be omitted and extraposed in dat-clauses), and in

(36c) the PP is the SC predicate.

(36) a. de politiei GO [SC/PP ti AFTER de dief] [adjunctPP tot zijn huis]

b. de politie volgen de dief [adjunctPP tot zijn huis]

c. de politie volgen [SC/PP de dief tot zijn huis]

With these three structures in place, we can then cover the entire spectrum of "follow"

facts: Wechsler's example in (34a) The wise men followed the star out of Bethlehem would be

cast into the mould of (36a). Given this, zijn (i.e., BE) appears to be the more natural auxiliary

in the Dutch counterpart of this sentence.21

Some relevant points are in order here. On the one hand, the impossibility of

passivizing Wechsler's example in (34a) is not to be related to the fact that it involves a

subject-predicated result XP (i.e., to "Visser's Generalization", as argued by Rappaport Hovav

& Levin (2001)),22 but rather to the fact that it is an unaccusative construction. Moreover,
21
Den Dikken (p.c.) pointed out to me that "the result with hebben <HAVE: JM> isn't exactly impossible,
but sounds awkward; there seems to be a sense that one wouldn't "have follow" a distant inanimate object like a
star (...) my suspicion is that "have+follow" is much like "pursued" <(emphasis added: JM)>; just like one
wouldn't pursue a star, one wouldn't "have+follow" a star either; on the other hand, one can of course be in hot
pursuit of a criminal <e.g., cf. (36b-c): JM>".
22
Cf. Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001: 771):
(i) "(...) we introduce a diagnostic that can pinpoint whether a result XP is predicated of the subject or the
object and use it to show that the result XP is clearly predicated of the subject in at least some examples

26
notice that the contrast between (37a) and (37b) is also expected under my present analysis.

(37a) is ungrammatical since the most natural interpretation to be assigned to (34a) is that

corresponding to an unaccusative construction structurally identical to the one in (36a);

Rappaport Hovav & Levin refer to this interpretation as "correlated motion". In contrast, the

well-formedness of (37b) is to be related to the fact that the sentence The police followed the

thief to his house has the additional reading that corresponds to a transitive structure. 23 All in

all, the relevant generalization appears to be the one stated in (38).

(37) a. *The star was followed out of Bethlehem.

b. The thief was followed to his house.

(38) a. Correlated motion sense ↔ Unaccusative structure ('BE' selected)

b. Detective-suspect/causative sense ↔ Transitive structure ('HAVE' selected)

Furthermore, note that the unaccusative use of the verb follow is not a quirk of Dutch:

for example, the German examples in (39) also show the relevant constrast in a more

transparent way. While the unaccusative use of the verb follow is related to dative case

assignment and BE-selection, the transitive use (the prefix ver- acting as a transitivizer) 24 is

related to accusative case assignment and HAVE-selection.

(...) verbs with subject-predicated complements cannot be passivized, a generalization which Bresnan
(1982: 402) attributes to Visser (1963-1973, part III.2: 2118). Visser’s Generalization, as Bresnan calls
it, accounts for the ungrammaticality of *Sam was promised to leave the country, where the controller
of the missing subject of the embedded clause is the logical subject of the matrix verb.”
23
As pointed out by Rappaport Hovav & Levin, follow-type sentences can be passivized only in their
causative sense (ergo in their transitive use):
(i) "(...) passive sentences with follow are acceptable only on the detective-suspect sense. Kim was followed
into the lab is felicitous, but it clearly receives the detective-suspect -and not the correlated motion-
interpretation, though its active counterpart is open to both interpretations."
Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001: 772)
24
Cf. den Dikken (1995) for discussion.

27
(39) a. Die Polizei ist dem Dieb zu seinem Haus gefolgt. (German)

the police IS de thiefdat to his house followed

b. Die Polizei hat den Dieb zu seinem Haus verfolgt.

the police HAS de thiefacc to his house VER-followed

(Heiner Drenhaus, p.c.)

Concerning apparent counterexamples like that in (34b) The sailors managed to catch

a breeze and ride it clear of the rocks, I think that McIntyre (2002: 21-22) hits the nail on the

head when pointing out that the range of "resultative" phrases able to be used as adjuncts is

idiosyncratically restricted. For example, his following comment is relevant here: "Rappaport

Hovav & Levin's (2001) verbs disallow certain prepositions (e.g., away), which are fine in

normal conflation structures: ride away vs *ride the breeze away " (p. 22).

Finally, let us deal with the apparently problematic data in (34c-d), repeated below in

(40), which also appear to contain directional PPs predicated of the subject.

(40) a. John danced mazurkas across the room.

b. The children played leapfrog across the park.

Within the present framework, which combines insights from both Hoekstra's work on

the syntax of predication and Hale & Keyser's theory of argument structure, there are still

those two ways in (41b) and (41c) that would allow us to escape the devastating possibility in

(41a), the one adopted by Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001).

(41) a. The directional PP in (40) is a subject-predicated complement. Ergo, the DOR

on English resultatives is incorrect.

28
 ------------------------------------------------------------

b. The directional PP in (40) is predicated of the direct object (e.g., cf. John

danced his way across the U.S).

c. The directional PP in (40) is an adjunct (e.g., cf. John swam laps to

exhaustion).

Quite interestingly, the analysis in (41b) is the one argued for by two of Rappaport

Hovav & Levin's (2001) referees:

(42) “Two referees suggest these examples <those in (40) included: JM> only appear to

have subject-predicated result XPs and are more appropriately analyzed as having the

result XP predicated of the object, consistent with the DOR. They propose that the

result XP is felt to be predicated of the subject due to a semantic relation between the

subject and the object (...) <In (40): JM> the suggestion is that the performance itself

traverses a path as it is created, and since the subject is engaged in this performance,

the subject’s own path can be determined from that of the performance”.

Rappaport Hovav &Levin (2001: 771)

As noted above, Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001) appeal to Visser's Generalization in

order to argue that the possibility in (41b) must be discarded (cf. my note 22). Their relevant

constrast is exemplified in (43):

(43) a. *Leapfrog can be played across the park.

ok
b. Leapfrog can be played in this park.

Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001: 771; fn. 9)

29
 This notwithstanding, Heidi Harley (p.c.) pointed out to me that that those facts in (43)

are not so clear-cut. Looking on the Internet for "naturally produced examples", one can find

relevant passives like the following ones:

(44) a. Lacrosse game was played with over 6000 players per team, and was played

across miles.

b. Field four was played across a wide open slope (dotted with inflatable

Speedball targets) and the surrounding woodland.

c. There are also cases when Tag was played across a particularly large space.

Accordingly, I do not think that Visser's Generalization is relevant to the present issue.

Be this as it may, the possibility in (41c) is not to be discarded. Indeed, the comment in (42)

put forward by these two referees can be granted descriptive validity, but (intuitions aside!)

there is no empirical evidence supporting it. Moreover, notice that it is not clear at all that we

should follow these two referees by analyzing the examples in (40) the same way as those in

(45a,b) below, which can actually be shown to involve a Small Clause Result complement (cf.

sections 2-4 above). Given this, I claim that the adjunct analysis seems to be the most natural

one for directional phrases like those in (40) as it is for those in (34a,b).

(45) a. John danced his way *(across the US).

b. John danced Sue *(across the room).

c. John danced mazurkas (across the room).

6. Conclusions

30
- Unlike Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001), I have argued that the DOR (i.e., the main

tenet of the syntactic account(s) of English resultatives) is not challenged by those

apparently problematic data commented on in sections 4 and 5 above.

- The conflation process involved in complex resultative constructions can be argued to

be regarded as a syntactic operation that merges two different l-syntactic structures

(Mateu 2001a,b): "True resultatives" (in Rapoport's (1999) sense)) involve the

conflation of a subordinate activity verb into the phonologically null main verb of a

construction expressing a (caused (if v is present)) change of location/state.

- With Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995), among others, I argue that the study of

English resultatives provides evidence for the syntactic encoding of unaccusativity in

English (contra Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001), Wechsler (1997), or Van Valin

(1990), among others).

References

Chomsky, Noam: 1995, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Den Dikken, Marcel: 1995, Particles, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, Adele: 1995, Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument

Structure, Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press.

Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser: 1993, 'On Argument Structure and the Lexical

Expression of Syntactic Relations', in idem (eds.), A View from Building 20: Essays in

Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 53-109.

Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser: 1997, 'The Limits of Argument Structure', in A.

Mendikoetxea and M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), Theoretical Issues at the Morphology-

Syntax Interface. Bizkaia, Servicio Editorial de la UPV, pp. 203-230.

31
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser: 1998, 'The Basic Elements of Argument Structure', in

H. Harley (ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32. Papers from the UPenn/MIT

Roundtable on Argument Structure. Cambridge, pp. 73-118.

Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser: 2002, Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument

Structure, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Hoekstra, Teun: 1984, Transitivity, Foris, Dordrecht.

Hoekstra, Teun: 1988, 'Small Clause Results', Lingua 74, 101-139.

Hoekstra, Teun: 1992, 'Aspect and Theta Theory', in I.M. Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its

Role in Grammar, Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 145-174.

Hoekstra, Teun: 1999, 'Auxiliary Selection in Dutch', Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

17, 67-84.

Huang, James: 1992, 'Complex Predicates in Control', in J. Higginbotham et al. (eds.),

Control and Grammar, Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 109-147.

Jackendoff, Ray: 1990, Semantic structures, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Jackendoff, Ray: 1992, 'Babe Ruth Homered His Way into the Hearts of America', in R.

Oehrle and T. Stowell (eds.), Syntax and the Lexicon. Syntax and Semantics 26,

Academic Press Inc., pp. 155-178.

Jackendoff, Ray: 1997a, The Architecture of the Language Faculty, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Jackendoff, Ray: 1997b, 'Twistin’ the Night Away', Language 73, 534-559.

Kim, Soowon and Joan Maling: 1997, 'A Crosslinguistic Perspective on Resultative

Formation', Texas Linguistic Forum 38, 189-204.

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav: 1995, Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical

Semantics Interface, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Li, Yafei: 1990, 'On V-V Compounds in Chinese', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8,

177-207.

32
Lieber, Rochelle and Harald Baayen: 1997, 'A Semantic Principle of Auxiliary Selection',

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 789-845.

Marantz, Alec: 1992, 'The Way-Construction and the Semantics of Direct Arguments in

English: A Reply to Jackendoff', in R. Oehrle and T. Stowell (eds.), Syntax and the

Lexicon. Syntax and Semantics 26, Academic Press Inc., pp. 179-188.

Marantz, Alec: 1997, 'No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the

Privacy of Your Own Lexicon', U.Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 201-225.

Mateu, Jaume: 2000, 'Why Can’t We Wipe the Slate Clean? A Lexical-Syntactic Approach to

Resultative Constructions', Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 71-95.

Mateu, Jaume: 2001a, 'Unselected Objects', in N. Dehé and A. Wanner (eds.), Structural

Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs, Berlin, Peter Lang , pp. 83-104.

Mateu, Jaume: 2001b, 'Small Clause Results Revisited', in N. Zhang (ed.), ZAS Papers in

Linguistics 26: Syntax of Predication, ZAS, Berlin. Also distributed electronically:

http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/papers/zaspil/infos/index.htm

Mateu, Jaume and Laia Amadas: 2001, 'Syntactic tools for semantic construal', paper

presented at the 1st Conference on Tools in Linguistic Theory (TiLT), Utrecht Institute

of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht, July 6-8

Mateu, Jaume and Gemma Rigau: 2002, 'A Minimalist Account of Conflation Processes:

Parametric Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface', in A. Alexiadou (ed.),

Theoretical Approaches to Universals, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 211-236.

McIntyre, Andrew: 2001, 'Event Paths, Argument Linking and Lexical Subordination: How

Syntax and Conceptual Structure constrain each other', ms. Institut für Anglistik

Universität Leipzig (downloadable: www.uni-leipzig.de/~angling/olsen/mcintyre).

Pustejovsky, James: 1991, 'The Syntax of Event Structure', Cognition 41, 47-82.

Rapoport, Tova: 1999, 'Structure, Aspect, and the Predicate', Language 75, 653-677.

33
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin: 1998, 'Building Verb Meanings', in M. Butt and W.

Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and Compositional Factors,

Stanford, CSLI Publicactions, pp. 97-134.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin: 2001, 'An Event Structure Account of English

Resultatives', Language 77, 766-797.

Simpson, Jane: 1983, 'Resultatives', in L. Levin et al. (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional

Grammar, Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 143-157.

Snyder, William: 1995, 'A Neo-Davidsonian Approach to Resultatives, Particles, and

Datives', NELS 25, 457-471.

Spencer, Andrew and Marina Zaretskaya: 1998, 'Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical

subordination', Linguistics 36, 1-39.

Talmy, Leonard: 1985, 'Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structures in Lexical Forms', in T.

Shoepen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description III: Grammatical

Categories and the Lexicon, Cambridge, CUP, pp. 57-149.

Talmy, Leonard: 1991, 'Path to realization: A typology of event conflation', Proceedings of

the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17, 480-519.

Tenny, Carol: 1994, Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Dordrecht, Kluwer.

Van Valin, Robert D.: 1990, 'Semantic parameters of split intransitivity', Language 66, 221-

260.

Verspoor, Cornelia Maria: 1997, Contextually-dependent lexical semantics, doctoral

dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

Wechsler, Stephen: 1997, 'Resultative Predicates and Control', Texas Linguistic Forum 38,

307-321.

34