Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:58:50.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Malka Rappaport Hovav and
Beth Levin
Malka Rappaport Hovav*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Beth Levin*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Rappaport Hovav, Department of English, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel [mhovav@mscc.huji.ac.il]
Levin, Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 [bclevin@stanford.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current syntactic accounts of English resultatives are based on the assumption that result XPs are predicated of underlying direct objects. This assumption has helped to explain the presence of reflexive pronouns with some intransitive verbs but not others and the apparent lack of result XPs predicated of subjects of transitive verbs. We present problems for and counterexamples to some of the basic assumptions of the syntactic approach, which undermine its explanatory power. We develop an alternative account that appeals to principles governing the well-formedness of event structure and the event structure-to-syntax mapping. This account covers the data on intransitive verbs and predicts the distribution of subject-predicated result XPs with transitive verbs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , December 2001, pp. 766 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Mona. 1978. NP preposing in noun phrases. North Eastern Linguistic Society 8. 12–21.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 515–31.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3. 297–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1978. A realistic transformational grammar. Linguistic theory and psychological reality, ed. by Halle, Morris, Bresnan, Joan, and Miller, George, 1–59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 343–434.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Zaenen, Annie. 1990. Deep unaccusativity in LFG. Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, ed. by Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Farrell, Patrick, and Mejías-Bikandi, Errapel, 45–57. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam, and Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.) 1998. The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Carrier, Jill, and Randall, Janet H.. 1993. Lexical mapping. In Reuland and Abraham, 119–42.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1993. Resultative compounds and lexical relational structures. Chinese Languages and Linguistics 3. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and James Huang, C.-T.. 1994. On the argument structure of resultative compounds. In honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, ed. by Chen, Matthew and Tzeng, Ovid, 187–221. Taipei: Pyramid Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William A. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of events. Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, ed. by Tsohatzidis, Savas L., 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Croft, William A. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In Butt and Geuder, 21–63.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Verbs: Aspect and argument structure. Manchester: University of Manchester and Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie, ##MS.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1992/93. On polylexy. Dictionaries 14. 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 2000. Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Ravin, Yael and Leacock, Claudia, 30–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1969. The individuation of events. Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel, ed. by Rescher, Nicholas, 216–34. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Delancey, Scott. 1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8. 181–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1991. Affectedness and externalization. North Eastern Linguistic Society 21. 81–94.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert. 1980. Surface structure: The interface of autonomous components. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. The case for case reopened. Syntax and semantics, vol. 8: Grammatical relations, ed. by Cole, Peter and Sadock, Jerrold M., 59–81. New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving kill from cause to die. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 429–38.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1991. It can't go up the chimney down: Paths and the English resultative. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17. 368–78.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2001. Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 23. 503–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane, and Vikner, Sten. 1993. Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events. In Reuland and Abraham, 143–55.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jen, Kennedy, Christopher; and Levin, Beth. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. SALT 9. 127–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74. 101–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 369–411.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 305–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. Twistin' the night away. Language 73. 534–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 587–622.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995a. O- and D-predicates: A semantic approach to the unaccusative-unergative distinction. Journal of Semantics 12. 377–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995b. What is an (im-)possible verb? Restrictions on semantic form and their consequences for argument structure. Folia Linguistica 24. 67–103.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Ingrid, and Wunderlich, Dieter. 1998. Cross-linguistic patterns of resultatives. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf, ##MS.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris, and Levin, Beth. 2001. Telicity corresponds to degree of change. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag and Szabolcsi, 29–54.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. Events and grammar, ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Manner in dative alternation. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18. 260–71.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 225–35.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1989. An approach to unaccusative mismatches. NELS 19. 314–28.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1999. Two structures for compositionally derived events. SALT 9. 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Ya-fei. 1990. On V-V compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 177–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. Pragmatics, vol. 9, Syntax and semantics, ed. by Cole, P., 245–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1982. On the difference between eating and eating something: Activities versus accomplishments. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 113–22.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1988. Review of Italian syntax, by Burzio, Luigi. Language 64. 130–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 157–89.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1966. Review of R. M. W. Dixon: Linguistic science and logic. Language 42. 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991a. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17. 409–41.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991b. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41. 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 1997. Aspect and predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, T. R. 1999. Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language 75. 653–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt and Geuder, 97–134.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 1999. Two types of compositionally derived events. Ramat Gan, Israel, and Evanston, IL: Bar Ilan University and Northwestern University, ##MS.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric, and Abraham, Werner (eds.) 1993. Knowledge and language, vol. 2, Lexical and conceptual structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally. 1987. Towards a transitive prototype: Evidence from some atypical English passives. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 422–34.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 1988. Predicative APs. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 703–10.Google Scholar
Rosen, Carol. 1981. The relational structure of reflexive clauses: Evidence from Italian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1992. Case and NP licensing. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 119–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2000. Secondary predication and aspectual structure. Approaching the grammar of adjuncts, ed. by Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Lang, Ewald, and Maienborn, Claudia, 241–64. (ZAS Papers in linguistics 17.) Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.) 1992. Lexical matters. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sato, Hiroaki. 1987. Resultative attributes and GB principles. English Linguistics 4. 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) 1976a. The grammar of causative constructions. (Syntax and semantics, vol. 6.) New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976b. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Shibatani 1976a, 1–40.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. by Levin, Lori, Rappaport, Malka, and Zaenen, Annie, 143–57. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1970. Jespersen's ‘move and change’ class and causative verbs in English. Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 2, Descriptive linguistics, ed. by Jazayery, Mohammed Ali, Polomé, Edgar C., and Winter, Werner, 101–9. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sybesma, Rint. 1993. On the ambiguity of riding tired. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1993.129–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Shibatani 1976a, 43–116.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3, Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and thought. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. 1992. The aspectual interface hypothesis. In Sag and Szabolcsi, 1–27.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21. 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek. 1996. Event semantics of verb frame alternations. Tilburg: Tilburg University dissertation.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 1999. Aspect of (un)boundedness. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 12. 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2001. Measuring events. Language 77. 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Cornelia Maria. 1997. Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1963-1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Washio, Ryuchi. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6. 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1997. Resultative predicates and control. Proceedings of the 1997 Texas Linguistics Society Conference, 307-21. (Texas Linguistic Forum 38.) Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Argument extension by lexical adjunction. Journal of Semantics 14. 95–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar