Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 17:2 (2025) ► pp.236–277

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The manner of cutting revisited

ORCiD logo with link | Kansai University
Published online: 15 July 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23029.iwa
Abstract
In the generative literature, whether manner/result complementarity is correct or not has been hotly debated. This paper aims to shed new light on the debate by approaching manner/result complementarity from a different angle: polysemy. Our focal example is cut. A detailed frame-semantic analysis of its polysemy reveals that the manner of cut is to be identified as something like ‘to move quickly in a straight line’. Accordingly, what counts as the manner use and what counts as the result use share the same base, differing only in terms of profiling. Thus, manner/result complementarity simply does not make sense.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies
    • 2.1Guerssel et al. (1985)
    • 2.2Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2013)
    • 2.3Rapoport (2014)
    • 2.4Goddard (2015)
  • 3.Subjective motion sentences of cut
  • 4.How to account for the polysemy of cut
    • 4.1How cut is treated in FrameNet
    • 4.2Possibilities of Frame Semantics
    • 4.3Frame semantics of cut
    • 4.4Alternative profiling
    • 4.5Further possibilities
    • 4.6The relevance of the ‘straight line’-schema
  • 5.Implications
    • 5.1The “manner/result” complementarity once again
    • 5.2Putative pieces of evidence for the manner/result complementarity thesis
    • 5.3Cut my feet on the coral
  • 6.‘Manner’ as a linguistically relevant notion
    • 6.1Manner as an idiosyncratic component of verb meaning
    • 6.2In larger settings
    • 6.3Some other cutting verbs
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (81)
References
Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2013). Manner vs. result complementarity in verbal alternations: A view from the clear alternation. NELS, 421, 39–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ausensi, J. (2024). The division of labor between grammar and the lexicon. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J., & Koonz-Garboden, A. (2012). Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry, 431, 331–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Result verbs, scalar change, and the typology of motion verbs. Language, 931, 842–876. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). The roots of verb meaning. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 571, 17–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J. (2007). Morpholexical transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics, 181, 153–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (2005). Why can’t you ‘open’ a nut or ‘break’ a cooked noodle? Learning covert object categories in action word meanings. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp. 209–243). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1988a). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988b). The syntax and semantics of HAVE and its complements [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
Clausner, T., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 101, 1–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Force dynamics and directed change. In R. G. de Almeida & C. Manouilidou (Eds.), Event lexicalization and argument realization (pp. 103–130). Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning (pp. 235–284). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 51, 351–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 671, 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1970). The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 120–134). Ginn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1977). Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts (pp. 75–102). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 91–110). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, V., König, E., & Moyse-Faurie, C. (2014). Comparative lexicology and the typology of event descriptions. In D. Gerland et al. (Eds.), Meaning and grammar of nouns and verbs (pp. 145–183). Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2015). Verb classes and valency alternations (NSM approach). In A. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages 21 (pp. 1671–1702). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Contrastive semantics of physical activity verbs. Language Sciences, 311, 60–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Words and meanings. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Argument realization. In J-O Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars (pp. 17–43). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Verbs, constructions, and semantic frames. In M. Rappaport Hovav et al. (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp. 39–58). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 801, 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guerssel, M., Hale, K., Laughren, M., Levin, B., & White Eagle, J. (1985). A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. CLS, 211, 48–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, K. L., & Keyser, S. J. (1987). A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 101. MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Husband, E. M. (2011). Rescuing manner/result complementarity from certain death. CLS, 471, 111–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwata, S. (1998). A lexical network approach to verbal semantics. Kaitakusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Does MANNER count or not? Linguistics, 401, 61–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 39–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987a). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987b). Nouns and verbs. Language, 631, 53–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Objecthood: An event structure perspective. CLS, 351, 223–247.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Verb classes within and across languages. In A. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages 21 (pp.1627–1670). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1991). Wiping the slate clean. Cognition, 411, 123–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Unaccusativity. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In B. Arsenijević et al. (Eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates (pp. 49–70). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Manner and result: The view from clean. In R. Pensalfini et al. (Eds.), Language description informed by theory (pp. 337–357). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (3rd ed.) (1995). Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (6th ed.) (2014). Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Majid, A., Boster, J., & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events. Cognition, 1091, 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1996a). Subjective motion in English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 183–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996b). How abstract is subjective motion? In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, language, and discourse (pp. 359–374). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987). Talking: A study in lexical network theory. BLS, 131, 195–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L. (1996). Frame semantics. In J. Verschueren et al. (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1996 (pp. 1–11). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. (2014). Verb meaning and context. In G. Girard-Gillet (Ed.), Autour du verbe anglais (pp. 121–137). Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Projection of arguments (pp. 97–134). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In M. Rappaport Hovav et al. (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages (pp. 59–81). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1999). Compositionality and blending. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics (pp. 129–162). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.1. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.2. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T. (1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 211, 385–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Leek, F. (1996). The English conative construction: A compositional account. CLS, 321, 363–378.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue