In:English Resultatives: A force-recipient account
Seizi Iwata
[Constructional Approaches to Language 26] 2020
► pp. vii–xviii
Get fulltext
This article is available free of charge.
Published online: 23 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.26.toc
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.26.toc
Table of contents
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1.Introduction
1.1What this book is about
1.1.1What are resultatives
1.1.2Two questions raised by resultatives with non-subcategorized
objects
1.2How resultatives have been analyzed in Generative Grammar
1.2.1Small clause analysis
1.2.2Lexical rule approach
1.3How resultatives have been analyzed in Construction Grammar
1.3.1Goldberg (1995)
1.3.2Boas (2003)
1.3.3Short summary
1.4The analysis to be proposed in this book
1.4.1How to answer the two questions
1.4.2A lexical-constructional approach
1.4.3Methodology
1.4.4Terminology
1.5Organization of the book
Part IA force-recipient account
Chapter 2.The status of the post-verbal NP
2.0Introduction to Part I
2.1Toward the constructional meaning of resultatives
2.1.1Boas (2003) once again
2.1.2Three possible paraphrases
2.1.3Problems with the first and second approaches
2.1.4Force-recipient account
2.2How force is transmitted
2.2.1Wipe the crumbs off the table
2.2.2Virtual pushing
2.3Further illustrations of virtual actions
2.3.1Push oneself to one’s feet
2.3.2Laugh – off the stage
2.3.3Sneeze – out
2.4Discourse patient?
2.5Conclusion
Chapter 3.Force transmission as essential to resultatives
3.0Introduction
3.1Subcategorized object cases
3.1.1Post-verbal NP as force-recipient
3.1.2Types of force
3.2Verbal force as relativized to the result state
3.3Non-subcategorized object cases again
3.3.1So-called “unaccusative/unergative” distinction
3.3.2Types of force, not types of participant roles
3.4Intransitive resultatives based on intransitive verbs
3.5Conclusion
Part IISo-called idiomatic cases
Chapter 4.He laughed his head off
4.0Introduction to Part II
4.1V one’s head off
4.1.1Why does his head move off?
4.1.2Force dynamics of ‘V one’s head off’
4.1.3Network of ‘V one’s head off’
4.2Two layers of meaning
4.3Other related constructions
4.3.1V one’s eyes out
4.3.2V one’s heart out
4.3.3V one’s guts out
4.3.4V one’s lungs out
4.3.5V one’s socks off and V one’s
butt off
4.4Discussion
Chapter 5.They beat the hell out of me
5.0Introduction
5.1A construction which beat the hell out of is related
to
5.1.1Perek (2016)
5.1.2‘Beat – out of’ construction
5.2Five types of beat – out of
5.2.1‘Content coming out of a container’ type
5.2.2‘Get rid of’ type
5.2.3‘Get by coercion’ type
5.2.4‘Physiological effect’ type and ‘emotional effect’ type
5.2.5What the three schemas tell us
5.3From beat the hell out of to ‘V the hell out
of’
5.3.1Beat the hell out of as the ‘emotional effect’
type
5.3.2From literal meaning to intensifier meaning
5.3.3Polysemy network of ‘V the hell out of’
5.3.4Interim conclusion
5.4‘V the shit out of’ and ‘V the daylights out of’
5.4.1Which types do beat the shit out of and
beat the daylights out of belong to?
5.4.2Polysemous networks of ‘V the daylights out of’ and ‘V the shit
out of’
5.5Possible origins of ‘V – out of’ idioms
5.5.1Beat the devil out of
5.5.2Beat the stuffing out of
5.6‘V the life out of’
5.7Two types of complement alternation
5.7.1To death and shitless
5.7.2Out of one’s wits
5.8Conclusion
Part IIIResultatives and domains
Chapter 6.Resultatives with verbs of eating and drinking I
6.0Introduction to Part III
6.1How to analyze resultatives with eat and
drink
6.1.1Croft (2009)
6.1.2More on the three phases
6.1.3Complex causal chains for eat
6.1.4Eat – clean and eat oneself
full
6.2Eat oneself AP/PP
6.2.1Eat themselves out of a food supply
6.2.2Eat oneself to death
6.3Drink oneself AP/PP
6.3.1Drink oneself beautiful
6.3.2Drink oneself silly
6.3.3Drink oneself to death
6.4Result states as relativized to the domains
6.5Summary and conclusion
Chapter 7.Resultatives with verbs of eating and drinking II
7.0Introduction
7.1Eat – out of house and home
7.1.1The caribou eat themselves out of house and
home
7.1.2He ate me out of house and home
7.2Drink – under the table
7.2.1Two domains involved
7.2.2The “beating” sense as primary
7.3Summary
7.4Conclusion
Chapter 8.He laughed himself silly
8.0Introduction
8.1‘V oneself silly’
8.1.1Jackendoff (1997)
8.1.2What does it mean to become “silly” as a result of
laughing?
8.1.3Short-lived result state
8.1.4Other instances of ‘V oneself silly’
8.2‘V oneself stupid’
8.3‘V oneself sick’
8.4Summary
8.5Conclusion
Part IV‘Change verb’ resultatives and how to accommodate them
Chapter 9.‘Change verb’ resultatives
9.0Introduction to Part IV
9.1Weak resultatives and spurious resultatives
9.1.1Pustejovsky (1991a)
9.1.2Washio (1997)
9.1.3Further characteristics of ‘change verb’ resultatives
9.2How ‘change verb’ resultatives are to be analyzed
9.2.1What is the host of predication?
9.2.2Unifying ‘change verb’ resultatives with ordinary
resultatives
9.3Resultative caused-motion counterparts
9.3.1Break the egg into the pan
9.3.2Empty the tank into the sink
9.4Still another issue raised by ‘change verb’ resultatives
9.4.1Result phrase-addition analysis
9.4.2Result phrase construction
9.4.3Summary
9.5Conclusion
Chapter 10.What are spurious resultatives?
10.0Introduction
10.1Putative characteristics of spurious resultatives
10.2Thinly
10.2.1Adverbs that refer to a theme entity
10.2.2Spread – thinly, cut – thinly
10.2.3The distinction between thin and
thinly
10.3Tight/tightly and
loose/loosely
10.3.1When the alternation is really possible
10.3.2What does it mean to be tight?
10.3.3Pull – tight vs. pull –
tightly
10.3.4Force persistence
10.3.5Loose vs. loosely
10.4Conclusion
Chapter 11.Resultatives with open/shut
11.0Introduction
11.1How a door becomes open/shut
11.1.1Resultative caused-motion?
11.1.2Co-occurrence of motion and change of state
11.1.3Internalized translational motion
11.1.4Co-extensiveness between change of state and internalized
translational motion
11.2Three types of open/shut expressions
11.2.1Type 1
11.2.2Type 2
11.2.3Type 3
11.3What the existence of the three types tells us
11.3.1Washio’s (1997) three types again
11.3.2Why open may appear in all the three types of
resultatives
11.3.3A unified analysis under the force-recipient account
11.4Functional open
11.5Conclusion
Part VOn the RESULT component
Chapter 12.To result phrases vs. into result
phrases
12.0Introduction to Part V
12.1To a whisper
12.1.1Point on a scale
12.1.2Other similar cases
12.2To death
12.2.1Endpoint of a path
12.2.2Short summary
12.3Into a coma
12.4To pieces vs. into pieces
12.4.1Corpus data
12.4.2Different aspects of becoming “pieces”
12.4.2.1Into pieces
12.4.2.2To pieces
12.4.3Other expressions for decomposition
12.5In/Into alternation
12.5.1In result phrase
12.5.2Parallel with spatial paths
12.6Conclusion
Chapter 13.Adjectival result phrases vs. prepositional result phrases
13.0Introduction
13.1Previous analyses
13.1.1A matter of conventionalization?
13.1.22003b)
13.1.3Problems with Tsuzuki (2003a, 2003b)
13.2The difference between an AP and a to-PP
13.2.1Aspectual integration of the verbal event and the change of
state
13.2.2‘AP only’ cases
13.2.3‘to-PP only’ cases
13.2.4Shoot – dead vs. shoot – to death
13.3Differences between APs, to-PPs, and
into-PPs
13.3.1Into-PPs
13.3.2Summary
13.4How the choice of result phrases is really to be accounted
for
13.4.1Tsuzuki’s (2003a, 2003b) proposal once again
13.4.2Verspoor’s (1997) data once again
13.5Implications for the force-recipient account
13.6Conclusion
Chapter 14.Consequences of the AP/PP distinction
14.0Introduction
14.1Aspectual constraint
14.1.1Immediate result or not?
14.1.2APs and PPs behave differently
14.1.3Prepositional result phrases vs. path result phrases
14.2She cried herself to sleep
14.2.1Enabling causation
14.2.2How to enable someone to sleep
14.2.2.1To sleep vs. awake
14.2.2.2A soothing/calming force
14.2.3How to enable oneself to sleep
14.2.3.1Fake reflexive cases
14.2.3.2Sing-type and
read-type
14.2.3.3Drink-type
14.2.3.4Cry-type
14.2.4Enabling causation in force dynamics
14.3Conclusion
Part VIStill further issues surrounding adjectival result phrases
Chapter 15.Maximal End-point Constraint reconsidered
15.0Introduction to Part VI
15.1Wechsler (2005a, 2005b)
15.2Problems
15.3Well-behaved data?
15.3.1Wechsler (2012, 2015)
15.3.2The “well-behaved” data as an illusion
15.4What is wrong with the maximal end-point constraint?
15.5Conclusion
Chapter 16.Selectional restrictions on adjectival result phrases
16.0Introduction
16.1Subcategorized object cases
16.1.1How the result state is brought about
16.1.2Not a direct result but a consequence
16.2Wipe – wet
16.2.1The wiping force once again
16.2.2When and why wipe – wet is possible
16.2.2.1When wipe becomes a verb of adding
substance
16.2.2.2Rub and brush
16.3Fake object cases
16.3.1Goldberg (1995), Vanden Wyngaerd (2001)
16.3.2Where the apparent delimited endpoint comes from
16.4Conclusion
Chapter 17.Temporal dependence reconsidered
17.0Introduction
17.1Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001)
17.1.1Two types of resultatives
17.1.2Temporal coextensiveness
17.2Temporal dependence is only part of the story
17.2.1Problems with Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001)
17.2.2The real difference between wriggle free and
wriggle oneself free
17.2.3Kick free
17.2.4When the subevents are temporally co-extensive
17.3Croft (2012)
17.3.1Integrating force-dynamic and aspectual representations of event
structure
17.3.2Modifications needed
17.4Conclusion
Part VIIResultatives that are not based on force-transmission
Chapter 18.Princess Anne rides to victory
18.0Introduction to Part VII
18.1To victory
18.1.1Direct Object Restriction
18.1.2Violation of the Direct Object Restriction
18.1.3Apparent puzzle of to victory
18.2To victory as a goal-achieving path
18.2.1Why the Direct Object Restriction holds
18.2.2Goal-like characteristics
18.2.3Change of state that is based on a metaphor
18.2.4Caused motion vs. simple motion
18.3Further instances of changes of state effected by metaphorical
changes of location
18.3.1To success
18.3.2To exhaustion
18.3.2.1No need for fake reflexives
18.3.2.2Who gets exhausted?
18.4Changes of state which are effected by physical changes of
location
18.4.1To safety and to
freedom
18.4.2Out of sight
18.5Conclusion
Chapter 19.Resultatives with free
19.0Introduction
19.1Does free denote an endpoint?
19.1.1‘Free as expressing an endpoint’ thesis
19.1.2Problems
19.2‘V – free’
19.2.1How to cause something to become free
19.2.2Free vs. to freedom
19.2.3Resultatives based on self-initiated force
19.3Cut – free
19.3.1Apparent puzzle
19.3.2‘Separation’-cut
19.3.3Cut – free as a ‘change verb’
resultative
19.3.4Putative restriction
19.4Conclusion
Part VIIIPutative resultatives
Chapter 20.Follow and disappear
20.0Introduction
20.1Follow him out of the room
20.1.1Another apparent counter-example to the Direct Object
Restriction
20.1.2Follow as a motion verb
20.1.3Further-specifying path PPs
20.2Other approaches
20.2.1Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001)
20.2.2Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004)
20.3Disappear down the road
20.3.1Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004)
20.3.2Disappear as a motion verb
20.3.3How to become invisible
20.3.4Whose visual field?
20.4Conclusion
Chapter 21.Verbs of sound emission followed by a path PP
21.0Introduction
21.1Previous analyses
21.1.1Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995, 1996, 1999)
21.1.2Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004)
21.1.3Meaning shift or construction?
21.2‘Motion-describing’ type
21.2.1Parallel between manner and sound
21.2.2Further parallels
21.3‘Motion-induced’ type
21.3.1Two types of sound emission
21.3.2‘Motion-describing’ type vs. ‘motion-induced’ type
21.4More on the distinction
21.5Where there is a sound, there should be a motion
21.6Verbs of sound emission followed by
open/shut
21.6.1Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995)
21.6.2A fundamental problem
21.6.3The sound-emission event as describing an internalized
translational motion
21.6.4Functional open once again
21.7Conclusion
Chapter 22.Reconsidering the parallel between change of state and change of
location
22.0Introduction
22.1Putative parallel between change of state and change of
location
22.1.1Transitive cases
22.1.2Intransitive cases
22.2Motion expressions
22.3Resultatives that are based on motion
22.4Overall picture
22.5Conclusion
Part IXStill another putative constraint
Chapter 23.Unique Path Constraint reconsidered
23.0Introduction
23.1Unique Path Constraint
23.1.1Goldberg (1991a, 1995)
23.1.2Adjectival result phrases do not denote paths
23.2Why adjectival result phrases do not co-occur with path PPs
23.2.1Co-occurrence of more than one result phrase
23.2.2No special constraint is necessary
23.3Still another distinction that has been overlooked
23.3.1Why motion verbs do not co-occur with result phrases
23.3.2Resultatives based on motion once again
23.4Conclusion
Chapter 24.To one’s death
24.1Another instance of resultative based on motion?
24.2Why to one’s death means what it does
24.3Contextual modulation
24.4Conclusion
Chapter 25.Summary and conclusion
25.1Resultative constructions under a force-recipient account
25.2Answers to the two questions
25.2.1Answer to the first question
25.2.2Answer to the second question
25.3How to arrive at the observed syntax
25.4Cross-linguistic differences
25.5Final word
References
Index of constructions
Subject index
