Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 13:2 (2021) ► pp.263–308

Another look at the interaction between verbs and constructions

The case of resultatives based on wipe

| Kansai University

Despite the wealth of literature on English resultatives, there still remain a number of issues that have not been squarely addressed. This paper addresses two of them through a case study of resultatives based on wipe. First, while the existence of resultatives with objects not selected by verbs is well-known in the literature (e.g., wipe the crumbs off the table/*wipe the crumbs), few studies have addressed the issue of exactly which entities may appear as non-selected objects. Second, there are resultatives whose form is to be analyzed as a mixture of the verb’s lexically-specified syntactic frame and the syntactic frame of resultatives (e.g. wipe the blade clean on his skin coat), but such resultatives have been neglected in previous studies.

In order to find an answer to the first issue, this paper adopts a force-recipient account, according to which the post-verbal NP of a resultative is a force-recipient (cf. Croft 1990, 1991, 1998, 2012). It is shown that non-selected objects like crumbs are indeed force-recipients in a conceptual scene. As for the second issue, such resultatives can be accommodated by means of a constructional analysis which holds that verbs contribute the semantics of the resulting expression, and that argument structure constructions simply enable the verb meaning to take its form. Together, these findings indicate that verbs play a far more important role than argument structure constructions in effecting the syntax and semantics of the resulting expression.

Keywords: resultative, non-selected object, force-recipient, frame semantics, argument structure construction, interaction between verbs and constructions, schema, enabling function
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Resultatives based on wipe
    • 2.1Previous analyses
    • 2.2Resultative caused-motion sentences
    • 2.3Resultatives based on ‘wipe – on NP’
      • 2.3.1Two distinct senses of wipe
      • 2.3.2Reference needs to be made to lexically-specified syntactic frames
      • 2.3.3Interim summary
  • 3.A force-recipient account and frame semantics
  • 4.Resultatives based on ‘wipe’
    • 4.1Frame semantics of wiping
    • 4.2Wipe the crumbs off the table
    • 4.3Wipe the blood off his face
  • 5.How form and meaning are related
    • 5.1Two operations
    • 5.2Resultatives are compositional, after all
  • 6.Resultatives based on ‘wipe – on NP’
    • 6.1The status of the post-verbal NP in ‘wipe – on NP’
    • 6.2Wipe the blade clean on the coat/wipe blood from the blade on the coat
    • 6.3Composite syntactic form
  • 7.Still another apparent puzzle posed by wipe – clean
    • 7.1Surface type objects vs. non-surface type objects
    • 7.2Possible origin of wipe – clean with non-surface type objects
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.21006.iwa
References
Boas, H. C.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Carrier, J., & Randall, J. H.
(1992) The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 231: 173–234.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1990) Possible verbs and event structure. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp. 48–73). Routledge.Google Scholar
(1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Event structure in argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 21–63), CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language (pp. 49–68). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D.
(2004) On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 351, 355–392. DOI logoGoogle 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
(1977) Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Hanshin.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: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 641, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawron, J. M.
(1986) Types, contents, and semantic objects. Linguistics and Philosophy, 91, 427–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 801, 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grunau, J.
(1985) Towards a systematic theory of the semantic role inventory. CLS, 211, 144–159.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Iwata, S.
(2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) English resultatives: A force-recipient account. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 11: 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rapoport, R.
(1988) Lexical subordination. CLS, 241, 275–289.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1991) Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 411, 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, L.
(2010) Arguments for pseudo-resultative predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 281, 135–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petruck, M.
(1996) Frame semantics. In J. Verschueren, J-O. Ӧstman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1996 (pp. 1–11). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G.
(2008) Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Randall, J. H.
(2010) Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
(1998) Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97–134). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2001) An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 771, 766–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivière, C.
(1982) Objectionable objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 131: 685–689.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S.
(1983) The syntactic forms of predication. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Simpson, J.
(1983) Resultatives. In M. Rappaport, A. Zaenen, & L. Levin (Eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar (pp. 143–157). Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.1, Concept structuring systems. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.2, Typology and process in concept structuring. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, C.
(1994) Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Washio, R.
(1997) Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 61: 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Dictionaries

Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary
(2003) London: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, third edition
(1995) Longman.Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms, third edition
(2010) Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
The Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms
(2002) Penguin Books.Google Scholar