Directional Locatives in Event Structure: Asymmetry between Goal...

Directional Locatives in Event Structure:

Asymmetry between Goal and Source

Seungho Nam*1)

- Table of Contents -

1. Directional Locatives

2. Goal-Source Asymmetry in Syntax

3. Directional PPs in Event Structure

4. Base Positions of Locative PPs and

their Semantic Scope

5. Concluding Remarks

1. Directional Locatives

This paper investigates the syntactic and semantic differences

between two types of directional locatives: (i) Goal locatives (e.g., into

the house) and (ii) Source locatives (e.g., from the house). We identify

their contrastive syntactic behavior in various constructions, and account

for their asymmetry by assigning them two distinct underlying base

positions. Furthermore, we argue that their systematic semantic

differences are predicted by their different semantic scope in event

structure.

Directional locatives can be divided into the following three types:

(i) Goal locatives, (ii) Source locatives, and (iii) symmetric Path

locatives. ‘Goal’ and ‘Source’ have been well defined in the

언 어 학 제 호43 (2005. 12. 30 : 85-117), 한국언어학회1) 서울대학교 언어학과([email protected])

언 어 학 제 호4386

literature: If an event involves a movement of an object and its

trajectory, Goal designates the final/end point of the trajectory and

Source the initial/starting point of the trajectory. Thus, we use the

terms ‘Goal locatives’ and ‘Source locatives’ to refer to the phrases

designating the initial point and the final point of a trajectory,

respectively. Each language has a way of expressing Goal and

Source: e.g., prepositional/postpositional phrases or affixes.

Contrary to the treatment of Relational Grammar and Lexical

Functional Grammar, Jackendoff (1983, 1990) does not take thematic

roles like Source and Goal as grammatical primitives. However, these

notions are defined in his lexical conceptual structure. Thus, in

Jackendoff (1990), Goal and Source are defined as an argument of

Path-functions, [Path TO ([Place ])] and [Path FROM ([Place ])], respectively.

Due to Jackendoff (1990), (1) below illustrates the conceptual structure

of a sentence such as John came to/from the office.

(1) [Event GO [Thing JOHN], [Path TO/FROM([Place OFFICE])]]

Notice that the above representation shows no structural difference

between Goal and Source locatives.

In English, prepositions like to, into and onto typically take a Goal

argument, and from, from under, from behind, and off can take a Source

argument. Some other prepositions in English can bear either a

directional or a non-directional sense, so the sentences in (2) are all

ambiguous. (2a) means either (i) ‘the suspect walked, staying inside

of the store,’ or (ii) ‘the suspect walked into the store from

outside.’

(2) a. The suspect walked in the store.

b. Harry swam under the bridge.

c. Chris drew the box behind the curtain.

d. The boys jumped on the bed.

Notice that each of the PPs in (2) only gives a Goal reading when the

Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source

87

sentence denotes a directional movement. That is, the PPs never refer to

a source location. Thus, (2b) does not mean that ‘Harry swam from

under the bridge.’ The prepositions in (2) do not carry a morpheme

denoting a (goal) directional sense, but they can give a goal

directional reading of a motion event. This feature is not found in

many other languages such as Spanish.

Another set of English prepositions that behave differently from

Source or Goal includes through, over, across, past, and around.

Nam (1995) categorized these words as ‘symmetric prepositions’

since they denote a symmetric path whose two end points (goal

and source regions) are in symmetric relation. For instance, John

threw the ball over the fence refers to a symmetric spatial relation

such that ‘the goal location of the ball is on the other side of the

fence from the source location, and vice versa.’ Thus, it does not

matter from which side of the fence the ball moved. Jackendoff

(1990) uses various path functions for the symmetric prepositions,

e.g., OVER, ACROSS, THROUGH (= VIA-IN), and VIA-NEAR, etc.1)

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 illustrates the

Goal-Source asymmetry in syntax, specifically in the structures of

Preposition Incorporation, Prepositional/Pseudo Passives, PP-dislocation

and locative alternations. Section 3 shows the semantic contrast between

Goal and Source PPs with respect to adverbial modification and

aspectual composition. Section 4 proposes two distinct underlying base

positions of Goal and Source locatives, and accounts for the syntactic

and semantic contrast in terms of a more fine-grained event structure.

Furthermore, we propose a set of mapping rules which link the locative

PPs in event structure to their syntactic positions.

1) Jackendoff (1990:47) says the direct object of transitive pass is understood as the

argument of this Path-function [VIA-NEAR]; it is neither Source nor Goal nor

Theme in the usual sense. Furthermore, he notes that the lexical verbs like pierce(e.g., the arrow pierced the target)and jump (e.g., John jumped the gorge) lexicallyincorporate THROUGH (or VIA-IN) and OVER (or ACROSS), respectively.

언 어 학 제 호4388

2. Goal-Source Asymmetry in Syntax

2.1 Directional vs. Non-directional PPs

Recently, Koopman (1997) and Travis (2000) among others have

contributed to the work on the dichotomy between directional and

non-directional PPs. Koopman argues for the need of two locative

functional heads in Dutch, i.e., ‘Path’ for directional PPs and ‘Place’

for non-directional ones. Koopman claims that prepositional PPs in

Dutch contain a functional category Place, but postpositional

phrases consist of a functional projection of Path embedding a

Place Phrase, as shown in (3).

(3) Het vliegtuig is [PathP [PlaceP vlak ondervlak ondervlak ondervlak onder de brug] doordoordoordoor] gevlogen

The airplane is right underright underright underright under the bridge] throughthroughthroughthrough] flown

‘The airplane flew right under the bridge.’

Koopman argues for this structural configuration, illustrating

various syntactic phenomena such as PP-Movement (pied-piping and

PP-over-V movement), P-stranding and P-incorporation. Postpositional

PPs in Dutch only have a directional reading, but prepositional PPs

may have either a non-directional or a directional reading. In addition,

their syntactic behavior clearly shows that postpositional PPs are more

integrated with the verb than prepositional PPs. In other words, PPs

with a directional reading are more integrated with the predicate than

those with a non-directional reading.

Dealing with only non-directional locatives in German, Maienborn

(2001) proposes three syntactic base positions for the locative PPs.2)

2) Kracht (2002) also identifies directional and non-directional senses in terms

of ‘Modalizer’ and ‘Localizer,’ respectively. Thus he analyses the whole PP in

(i) below as a Modalizer Phrase (MP) embedding a Localizer Phrase (LP).

(i) The cat appeared [MP from [LP under [DP the table]]]


89

(4) a. In Argentina, Eva still is very popular.

b. Eva signed the contract in Argentina.

c. Eva signed the contract on the last page.

The PP in Argentina in (4a) is classified as a ‘frame-setting

modifier,’ which often carries a temporal reading. The same PP in

(4b) is called an ‘external modifier,’ and on the last page in (4c) is

called an ‘internal modifier.’ Maienborn (2001) claims that the three

types of locatives are generated in different base positions: The

frame-setting modifier of (4a) is generated in the periphery of

TopP(topic phrase), and modifies the whole event of the sentence.

The external locative of (4b) is generated in the periphery of VP,

and modifies the eventuality of the VP. Finally, the internal locative

of (4c) is generated in the periphery of V, and modifies the

eventuality of the V.

2.2 Preposition Incorporation

Preposition incorporation reveals the Goal-Source asymmetry as

well as the contrast between directional vs. non-directional locatives.

Baker (1988) illustrates that the PPs of Dative and Goal are most

common in preposition incorporation, and claims that the arguments

associated with the applicatives are theta-marked ones, i.e., inner

locatives in the sense of Hornstein and Weinberg (1981). (5-6) of

Kinyarwanda are quoted from Kimenyi (1980), and (7) of Chichewa

from Baker (1988).

(5) a. Umukoobwa a-ra-som-a igitabo

girl SP-PRES-read-ASP book

‘The girl is reading the book.’

b. Umukoobwa a-ra-som-erererer-a umuhuungu igitabo

girl SP-PRES-read-forforforfor-ASP boy book

‘The girl is reading the book for the boy.’

언 어 학 제 호4390

(6) a. Abaana b-iica-ye kukukuku meeza

children SP-sit-ASP onononon table

b. Abaana b-iica-ye-hohohoho ameeza

children SP-sit-ASP-onononon table

‘The children are sitting on the table.’

(7) a. Ndi-na-tumiz-a chipanda cha mowa kwakwakwakwa mfumu

1sS-PAST-send-ASP calabash of beer totototo chief

‘I sent a calabash of beer to the chief.’

b. Ndi-na-tumiz-ir-a mfumu chipanda cha mowa

1sS-PAST-send-to-ASP chief calabash of beer

‘I sent the chief a calabash of beer.’

The verbal complex of (5b) contains an applicative suffix -er

denoting Benefactive role. The verbal complex in (6b) also contains

an applicative suffix -ho ‘on’ instead of the lexical preposition ku

‘on’ in (6a). (7a) contains the lexical preposition kwa 'to’, but in

(7b) the applicative suffix -ir ‘to’ (Goal) is incorporated into the

verbal complex. The following data from Kimenyi (1980)

demonstrates that PI is impossible from the outer locatives.

(8) a. Abaana b-iica-ye ku musozi

children SP-sit-ASP on mountain

b. *Abaana b-iica-ye-ho umusozi

children SP-sit-ASP-on mountain

‘The children are sitting on the mountain.’

Baker (1988) and Kimenyi (1980) illustrate few source locatives. The

following is the sole example of PI with a Source argument in Baker

(1988:240).

(9) Kambuku a-na-b-er-a mkango njinga.

leopard SP-PAST-steal-APPLAPPLAPPLAPPL-ASP lion bicycle

‘The leopard stole the bicycle from the lion.’


91

Baker reports that the sentence also has a Benefactive reading:

That is, ‘The leopard stole the bicycle for the lion.’ We claim,

however, the Source reading is possible because the Source

argument is a true argument of the verb ‘to steal.’ That is, steal

takes a Source as a true argument rather than a Goal (cf. *The

man stole the book into his bag).

Koopman (1997) shows that Dutch postpositions and particles can

incorporate to V deriving a directional interpretation whereas

prepositions cannot due to their non-directional reading. If a

prepositional PP is selected by a motion verb, it may derive a goal

directional reading. Thus, (10a) has an incorporated (directional)

preposition in between the auxiliary verb is and the main verb

geklommen ‘climb’, and (10b) has a directional postposition door

‘through’ incorporated in gelopen after the auxiliary verb is ‘be.’

(10) a. omdat zij de boom is inininin geklommen

because she the tree is in climbed

‘because they climbed into the tree’

b. omdat zij het bos is doordoordoordoor gelopen

because she the forest is through walked

‘because she walked through the forest’

Furthermore, unlike Goal directional PPs, Dutch Source directional PPs

do not allow P-incorporation. Thus, the goal type particle heen may be

incorporated to V as in (11a), but the source type particle vandaan in

(11b) may not.

(11) a. dat zij de jas over de stoel hebben heenheenheenheen gelegd

that they the coat over the chair have prt put

‘that they laid the coat over the chair’

b. dat dit book (van) onder het bed is (?*vandaanvandaanvandaanvandaan) gekomen

that this book from under the bed is from come

‘that this book came from under the bed’

언 어 학 제 호4392

Notice that van ‘from’ in (11b) appears as a preposition. The

source PPs with van, however, can be dislocated by pied-piping

and PP-over-V movement, whereas goal type PPs cannot. The

following data are quoted from Koopman (1997, and pc).

(12) Movement of non-directional PPs:

boven in welke la heb jij de sokken gelegd

up in which drawer have you the socks lay

‘Up in which drawer did you lay the socks?’

(13) Movement of directional PPs:

a. *Onder welke brug door is het vliegtuig gevlogen

Under which bridge through is the airplane flown

‘Under which bridge did the airplane fly?’

b. *Welk bos in ben jij gelopen

Which forest in are you walked

‘Into which forest did you walk?’

c. *Zij zijn gelopen het bos door

they are walked the forest through

‘They walked through the forest.’

(14) Movement of Source directional PPs with van:

a. van welke brug ben jij gelopen

from which city are you walked

‘From which city did you walk?’

b. (?)Zij zijn gelopen van Amsterdam

they are walked from Amsterdam

‘They walked from Amsterdam.’

Munro (2000) illustrates that some verbs in Choctaw and

Chickasaw can occur with more than one applicative prefix. Munro

claims there is a strong constraint against verbs with a total of more

than four arguments. (15) displays combinations of multiple applicatives

in Choctaw: commitative and dative in (a), and commitative and

benefactive in (b). The Chickasaw sentences in (16) also show

combinations of applicatives among commitative, goal, source, and


93

stative locatives.3)

(15) a. Charles-at [sa-baa]-[chi]-taloow-aachi.

Charles-nom [lsII-com]-[2sIII:dat]-sing-irr

‘Charles will sing totototo you withwithwithwith me’

b. Lynn-at kaah [chi-baa]-[ami]-chopa-tok.

Lynn-nom car [2sII-com]-[1sIII:ben]-buy-pt

‘Lynn bought a car forforforfor me withwithwithwith you’

(16) a. [ibaa-in]-taloowa

[with-to]-sing ‘sing to with’ (directional in- ‘to’)

b. [aa-imaa]-chompa

[in-from]-buy ‘buy from in’ (non-directional aa- ‘in’)

c. ibaa-okaa-malli

[with-into]-jump ‘jump into with’ (directional okaa- ‘into’)

Munro notes that the order of the prefixes in the combinations,

specifically in Chickasaw, is subject to the following constraint:

Non-directional prefixes precede Source prefixes, which in turn precede

Goal-directional prefixes. Thus the applicatives in (16), even though

their combinations are somehow restricted, are prefixed to the verb in

the following order: [aa-](non-directional locative) + [imaa-](source

directional) + [okaa-](goal directional) + [in-](dative) + verb-root. This

applicative prefix ordering suggests that the different locative

argument/adjuncts occupy different syntactic positions and modify

different semantic domains.

2.3 Prepositional (Peudo) Passives

Prepositional passives show a similar contrast between Goal and

Source. (17-19) illustrate active-passive pairs, where the passive

sentences have a stranded preposition, and their object NPs are

promoted to the subject position. When a PP denotes a benefactive (17),

3) The underlined vowels in (15a,b) are nasalized, which are phonemically contrastive

to unmarked non-nasalized vowels.

언 어 학 제 호4394

goal (18), or commitative (19), its object NP is allowed to be the

passive subject. (The data are quoted from Couper-Kuhlen 1979).

(17) a. His surviving brother provided for John’s widow. [benefactive]

b. John’s widow was provided for by his surviving brother.

(18) a. Several magistrates spoke to him. [goal]

b. He was spoken to by several magistrates.

(19) a. Anyone cannot room with Martha. [commitative]

b. Martha can’t be roomed with by anyone.

However, when the PP denotes a circumstantial location or source, its

NP is rarely found in the passive subject position. Thus, the

(a)-sentences with a goal locative in (20-22) are acceptable, whereas the

(b)-sentences with a source locative sound awkward.

(20) a. The store can be run to in a matter of minutes. [goal]

b. *The store can be run from in a matter of minutes. [source]

(21) a. If the boat is jumped into it may capsize. [goal]

b. *If the boat is jumped from it may capsize. [source]

(22) a. The house was moved into three weeks ago. [goal]

b. ?*The house was moved from three weeks ago. [source]

Now consider the following minimal pairs, where the same PP may

give a directional reading or a non-directional reading.

(23) a. The road could be driven across only at great risk.

b. *The road could be played across only at great risk.

(24) a. The gate mustn't be gone beyond.

b. *The gate mustn't be played beyond.

Couper-Kuhlen (1979:54) argues, On the other hand, if some of these

same examples are manipulated in order to express, say, motion +

direction (or resultative position) [e.g., (23b) and (24b)] rather than

locomotion + direction [e.g., (23a) and (24a)], then the notion in object


95

position becomes one of location and a passive is no longer possible.

However, Couper-Kuhlen’s distinction between motion and locomotion

does not seem to be responsible for this contrast since the sentence

(25a) is ambiguous with the same motion verb: (i) ‘the boy was

running crossing the road,’ and (ii) ‘the boy was running on the

other side of the road.’

(25) a. The boy was running across the street.

b. The road can be run across only at great risk.

(25b) contains the same verb and preposition in passive, but the

sentence is not ambiguous. (25b) has a directional reading only, i.e.,

‘the road can be crossed by running only at great risk.’ This

contrast shows that non-directional PPs do not undergo

passivization, stranding the preposition. However, there are some

apparent counterexamples where non-directional PPs allow

passivization.

(26) a. This house cannot be lived in any longer.

b. This cart must not be sat in by more than two people at once.

Kouper-Kuhlen (1979:64) says that (26a-b) are acceptable since the PPs

carry an instrumental sense, i.e., the locations are used to serve a

certain purpose. However, the acceptability does not seem to depend on

their instrumental reading but what matters here is their argumenthood.

The PPs in (26) are semantically selected by the verbs live and sit, and

their syntactic status is different from that of the PPs in the following.

(27) a. John slept in New York yesterday.

b. *New York was slept in by John yesterday.

That is, the PPs in (26) are true arguments of the verbs live and sit,

but the PP in (27) is not a true argument, but rather an adjunct

modifying the whole event ‘John’s sleeping yesterday.’ Following

언 어 학 제 호4396

Baker’s (1988) distinction, the PPs in (26) are theta-marked by the

verb, while that of (27) is not.4)

2.4 Movement and Ordering

Another piece of syntactic evidence revealing the contrast between

Source and Goal is that Source PPs can be easily dislocated whereas

Goal PPs cannot. The Source PP from Los Angeles in (28) can move to

the front by Topicalization, whereas the Goal PP to Chicago resists such

a move. This difference suggests that the Goal PP behaves more like a

true complement of the verb send than the Source PP does.

(28) a. From Los Angeles John sent the letter to Chicago.

b. ??To Chicage John sent the letter from Los Angeles.

Now we note that a Source PP is more ready to scramble with a

temporal/aspectual PP. Thus, the PP from the library in (29) can move

over the durative adverbial for ten minutes, but the Goal PP to the

library in (30) is not allowed to move over the time-frame adverbial in

ten minutes.

(29) a. He ran from the library for ten minutes.

b. He ran for ten minutes from the library.

(30) a. He ran to the library in ten minutes.

b. ??He ran in ten minutes to the library.

Goal PPs, combining with a transitive verb, always specify the location

or the movement of Theme argument, i.e., the argument in direct

object position. Therefore, (31a) entails that ‘Mary was in the

4) Let us note here another type of locative PP that is not easy to be passivized.

The following contains an orientational locative which does not refer to a goal or

a source but refers to an orientation of trajectory. Thus, its passive counterpart (ii)

sounds awkward.

(i) John advanced towards the house.(ii) ??The house was advanced towards by John.


97

garden’ and (31b) ‘the hay moved onto the truck.’

(31) a. John saw Mary in the garden.

b. John loaded the hay onto the truck.

If a verb takes a Source PP, however, it may denote either the location

of the subject argument or the location of the object argument. That is,

from the rooftop in (32a) refers to the location of John (the subject), and

from the ground in (32b) refers to the source location of the hay.

In other words, the Source PP from the rooftop in (32a) is

‘subject-oriented’ and the other PPs in (32a-b) are

‘object-oriented.’

(32) a. John saw Mary in the garden from the rooftop.

b. John loaded the hay onto the truck from the ground.

We note here that the PPs are not free in ordering: That is, if an object

is followed by an object-oriented PP and a subject-oriented PP in

English, the former always precedes the latter. Therefore, the two PPs

in (32a) cannot scramble as in (33a), but those in (32b) can scramble as

in (33b). (33a) may have a reading where ‘the rooftop was in the

garden,’ which, in contrast, is not the intended reading of (32a).

(33) a. *John saw Mary from the rooftop in the garden.

b. (?)John loaded the hay from the ground onto the truck.

We have seen that Goal PPs are always oriented to object/theme

argument but Source PPs may be oriented to subject argument. The

data also show that two locative PPs oriented to the same argument

(e.g., Theme) can change their positions, but those locative PPs oriented

to different arguments cannot.

언 어 학 제 호4398

2.5 Locative Alternations

English and many other languages allow locative alternations such

as the following:

(34) a. Bees are swarming in the garden. ⇔

b. The garden swarms with bees.

(35) a. John sprayed paint on the wall. ⇔

b. John sprayed the wall with paint.

(36) a. The woman embroidered flowers on the jacket. ⇔

b. The woman embroidered the jacket with flowers.

These alternation patterns have been attested and well described in

many languages. In (34a), the intransitive verb swarm takes a locative

PP in the garden, but the same location the garden shows up as a subject

in (34b). (35) and (36) illustrate two more alternation patterns between

two transitive structures: The locative arguments in (35a) and (36a) are

not direct objects, but they show up as a direct object in the other

structures (35b, 36b).

Locative PPs involved in such alternations are mostly Goal-type

locatives, i.e., the nouns of the PPs denote a goal/result location of the

relevant argument, typically a Theme. Thus, (34-36) entails ‘bees

are in the garden,’ ‘paint ends up being on the wall,’ and ‘flowers

come to exist on the jacket.’ Syntactically, the locative arguments

are promoted to subject in (34) or to direct object in (35-36), and

we claim that the promotion should be subject to a syntactic

constraint: Only V’-internal/inner locatives can be promoted by

locative alternation. In a more general context, we claim that

V-modifiers like Goal-type PPs allow locative alternation whereas

VP-adjuncts like Source and Path-type PPs rarely allow locative

alternation. Furthermore, non-directional PPs - higher VP-adjuncts

- do not participate in locative alternation.


99

3. Directional PPs in Event Structure

3.1 Lexical Complex Event Structure

Since Vendler (1967) characterized four classes of Aktionsarten,

there have been many proposals on the complex lexical event structure:

Dowty (1979), Jackendoff (1990), Grimshaw (1990), Parsons (1990),

Pustejovsky (1991, 1995) among others. Most of these models identify

the structure of an event with the organization of the arguments in the

clause, and extend the lexical event structure to compositional

structures. The following cases illustrate some event structures of lexical

verbs proposed in the literature. Since McCawley (1968) used CAUSE

and BECOME in lexical decomposition of kill, i.e.,

‘CAUSE-BECOME-NOT-alive’, they are accepted as primitives in

many proposals. Thus, Dowty (1979) and Jackendoff (1993, 1990)

take them as major primitive concepts in event/proposition

structure.

(37) Dowty 1979:

open: [[DO(...)] CAUSE [BECOME[...]]]

(38) Jackendoff 1990:

open:[Event1CAUSE([Thing xxxx], [Event2GO([Thing y], [Path TO[Property

OPEN]]

(39) Parsons 1990:

close: (e)[Cul(e) & Agent(e, xxxx) & (e’)[Cul(e’) & Theme(e’, yyyy)

& CAUSE(e,e’) & (s)[Being-closed(s) & Theme(s, yyyy) &

Hold(s) & Become(e’,s)]]]

(40) Pustejovsky 1991:

John closed the door

E:Transition=e1:Process = [act(john,the-door) & not-closed(the-door)]

+ e2:State = [closed(the-door)]

Notice that the event structures of Jackendoff and Parsons are

언 어 학 제 호43100

embedding/recursive: In Jackendoff’s lexical conceptual structure of

open, the outer event (Event1) embeds the inner event (Event2),

and the outer event (e) of Parsons’ representation (39) embeds the

inner event (e’), which again contains a state (s). In addition to

such a recursive event structure, Pustejovsky conjoins sub-events

in parallel: Thus, in (40), the whole event named ‘E:Transition’

contains two sub-events [e1:Process] and [e2:State] which are

conjoined under E, i.e., none of them embeds the other. In section

4, we will adopt and extend the conjoined event structures in order

to account for the event composition of locative PPs and

predicates.

3.2 Adverbial Modification and Locative PPs in Event Structure

We argue that the various modes of locative PP semantics require

a more fine-grained event structure. Alsina (1999), Tenny (2000), and

Travis (2000) identify outer (causing) event and inner (caused/core)

event. Pustejovsky (1995), Eckardt (1998) and Ernst (1998) account for

(scopally) ambiguous adverbial modification in terms of event structure.

Let us consider a few adverbs that can be interpreted ambiguously as

in the following:

(41) a. Harry departed the room rudely.

(i) ‘Harry’s way of departing the room was rude.’

(ii) ‘the event of Harry’s departing the room was rude.’

(42) a. The police quickly arrested John.

b. John clumsily spilled the beans.

The three sentences above contain a manner adverb, thus (41.i) shows

the manner reading of rudely, where Harry might have interrupted

others by slamming the door shut. We can easily get such manner

readings in (42a-b), too. Furthermore, the sentences have another

reading where the adverbs modify the whole event, i.e., the adverbs are

predicated of the whole event. Thus, (41.ii) shows that rudely is


101

predicated of the whole event. In (42a), quickly indicates ‘without

delay or hesitation’ when it modifies the whole event; clumsily in

(42b) indicates that the whole event was clumsy. Pustejovsky

(1991) represents the ambiguous readings in his event structure as

the following illustrate:

(43) Pustejovsky (1991): Harry departed the room rudely.

a. E0:Transition

∕ ∖E1:Process E2:State

∕ ∖ ┃

MODMODMODMOD E1:ProcessE1:ProcessE1:ProcessE1:Process [Harry is-not-in the-room]

┃ ┃

[rudely] [Harry departed]

b. E0:Transition

∕ ∖MODMODMODMOD E0: TransitionE0: TransitionE0: TransitionE0: Transition

┃ ∕ ∖[rudely] E1:Process E2:State

┃ ┃

[Harry departed] [Harry is-not-in the-room]

(43a) represents the reading of (41.i), i.e., the manner reading of rudely,

and (43b) represents the reading of (41.ii) where the modifier (MOD)

scopes over the whole event E0.

The adverb again, the so-called repetitive adverb, can be interpreted

ambiguously in the following examples quoted from Dowty (1979).

(44) a. John closed the door again.

b. All the king’s horses and all the king's men couldn't put

Humpty Dumpty together again.

c. John fell asleep during the lecture, but Mary quickly shook

him awake again.

d. The book had fallen down, but John put it on the shelf again.

언 어 학 제 호43102

According to Dowty (1979), (44a) above is ambiguous: (i) the event

of John’s closing the door is assumed to have occurred previously;

(ii) the state of the door being closed is assumed to have existed

previously, i.e., not necessarily as a result of John’s action. Tenny

(2000) calls the first reading ‘repetitive’, and the second

‘restitutive’ reading. In other words, the first reading indicates that

the whole event is repeated, while the second reading means that

only the result state of being closed is repeated. We have rather

clear ambiguity in (44b-d), so (44b) implies either (i) the whole

event denoted by the sentence (interpreted positively) previously

occurred, or (ii) ‘Humpty Dumpty is assumed to have previously

been together in one piece, but not as a result of anyone’s doing.

This type of ambiguity in adverbial modification naturally suggests

that each of the adverbs should be generated in two distinct base

positions, and the base positions can fit into the extended VP

structures: i.e., VP-shell structure of Larson (1988); and L-syntax and

S-syntax of Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002), Ramchand (2003) among

others. Furthermore, we may find the positions of adverbials in

Cinque’s (1999) universal hierarchy of functional head projections

illustrated as follows:

(45) Cinque’s universal hierarchy of clausal functional projections:

[Mood-speech act [Mood-evaluative[Mood-evidential

[Mod-epistemic[T(Past) [T(future) ... [Mod-necessity [Mod-possibility

[Asp-habitual ...

(i) [Asp-repetitive(I) [Asp-frequentative(I)... [Asp-celerative(I)

[T(Anterior) [Asp-terminative ... [Asp-perfect(?) [Asp-retrospective

[Asp-proximative [Asp-durative [Asp-generic/progressive ...

[Asp-SgCompletive [Asp-PlCompletive [Voice

(ii) [Asp-celerative(II) [Asp-repetitive(II) [Asp-frequentative(II)

Cinque places the adverb again under two projections: Asp-repetitive(I)

on the line (i) above and Asp-repetitive(II) on the line (ii). Cinque also

identifies the positions of quickly at the two projections: Asp-celerative(I)


103

and Asp-celerative(II).

Now let us consider how Goal and Source PPs interact with the

adverb again. The syntactic behavior of the PPs we discussed in section

2 suggests that Goal PPs should be syntactically much closer to the

verb than Source PPs. Now considering their interaction with again, we

claim that Goal PPs constitute a core event (i.e., result state) whereas

source PPs do not. Therefore, again does not allow restitutive (narrow

scope) reading with a Source PP.

(46) a. John drove to New York again. [ambiguous]

b. John drove from New York again. [repetitive reading only]

(47) a. John sent the book to New York again. [ambiguous]

b. John sent the book from New York again. [repetitive only]

Again in (46a) gives two readings: (i) repetitive reading - ‘the

event of John’s driving to New York is repeated,’ and (ii) restitutive

reading - ‘the state of John’s being at New York is

resumed/restituted.’ The second reading does not imply that John

drove to New York previously. However, (46b) only gives a

repetitive reading, and does not give a restitutive reading, since the

sentence lacks an expression that may denote a result state. The

same contrast holds for (47a) and (47b). We will see shortly that

the semantic contrast between Source and Goal PPs can be

accounted for by assigning them two independent semantic scopes

in the event structure.

3.3 Aspectual Division

Cinque (1999) and Travis (2000) identify (at least) two aspectual

domains in syntax, which Tenny (2000) labels higher/viewpoint aspect

and middle/situation aspect. We argue that Source-type PPs scope over

the whole situation aspect, so they, unlike Goal PPs, do not shift the

aspectual character (situation aspect) of the inner event denoted by the

lower VP.

언 어 학 제 호43104

(48) a. Mary ran (for ten minutes/*in ten minutes).

b. Mary ran to the store (in ten minutes/*for ten minutes).

c. He ran from the library (for ten minutes/*in ten minutes).

(48a) denotes an atelic activity, which does not normally go with a

time-frame adverbial like in ten minutes. When a Goal PP combines

with the verb, however, it changes the aspectual character of the verb,

so the sentence denotes a telic event of accomplishment. Thus, (48b) is

fine with a time-frame adverbial but it is bad with a durative adverbial

for ten minutes. Unlike Goal PPs, the Source PP from the library does not

change the aspectual character of the verb, so (48c) behaves in the

same way as (48a). This contrast between Goal and Source PPs on

aspectual shift suggests that the Goal PPs can be treated in the same

manner as an internal argument that participates in aspectual

composition. Tenny (1994), Verkuyl (1993), and Krifka (1995) report that

an internal argument such as (incremental) Theme determines the

aspectual character of the VP. Thus, we have the following aspectual

alternation: The quantized NPs like a house in (49a) and the whole tank

of beer in (50a) make the VP denote a telic event, but the unquantized

(bare plural or mass) NPs like houses in (49b) and beer in (50b)

compose an atelic event.

(49) a. Mary built a house in a year.

a’. ??Mary built a house for a year.

b. Mary built houses for a year.

b’. *Mary built houses in a year.

(50) a. The men drank the whole tank of beer in a couple of hours.

a’. ??The men drank the whole tank of beer for a couple of

hours.

b. The men drank beer for a couple of hours.

b’. *The men drank beer in a couple of hours.

Let us assume that, in a fine-grained VP internal structure, Asp-head

separates the lower and the higher VPs. Then, we propose that Goal


105

PPs are generated under the AspP, while Source PPs are generated in a

position higher than the AspP. We will implement the asymmetry in

the extended VP structure and event structure proposed shortly in

section 4.

3.4 Non-locative Source PPs

Source PPs headed by from in English often give a non-locative

readings, thus the from-PPs below refer to Cause in (51-52) and Agent

in (53).

(51) a. Harry died from AIDS complications. [cause]

b. We have reports of death from AIDS complication.

(52) a. No damage was caused from the shooting. [cause]

b. Preliminary estimates indicate damage from the freeze

totals $385 million.

(53) a. We have been promised from the top in Moscow that we

will receive... [agent]

b. challenge/support/donation/testimony/help/approval/threat

from the company

The Source PPs in (51) and (52) both denote a state or an event

that caused a result state. In (51a), Harry’s state of being under

AIDS complications caused his death, and in (52a) the shooting

event caused no damage. We also find in (51b) and (52b) the same

semantic relation between a predicative noun (reports or damage)

and a Source PP. Thus, the sentences take these PPs as composing

a causing sub-event of their event structures. Furthermore, (53a)

shows that a Source PP can denote an Agent of passive sentences,

and such an Agent reading can be obtained in the nominal

constructions illustrated in (53b). If an Agent argument shows up in

a complex event denoted by a transitive verb, it does not play a

role in its result state. Instead, the Agent role is essential in its

causing sub-event. We will see that these non-locative readings of

언 어 학 제 호43106

Source PPs can be properly represented in the event structures

proposed in 4.2.5)

4. Base Positions of Locative PPs and their Semantic

Scope

Here, we adopt the extended VP structure of Hale and Keyser (1993),

and propose three base positions where Goal PPs, Source PPs, and

non-directional PPs are generated. Further, extending Pustejovsky's

(1991, 1995) event structure, we represent the semantic scope of the PPs

in event structure. A complex event contains at least two conjoined

sub-events: One is normally a Process denoting a causing sub-event,

and the other is a State denoting a result state.6)

4.1 Goal PPs: Internal Locatives

Let us first consider Goal PPs like those in (54): the Goal PPs

(PPG) are generated under the lower VP, where a Goal PP

combines with V2 to form V2’ as shown in (55). V2’ may contain

an internal argument DP2 (Theme).

5) Source phrases may be used as an obligatory adjunct in the passives (i-ii) below.

Grimshaw & Vikner (1993:143) claim that obligatory adjuncts in passive identify

causing sub-event of the whole sentence as shown in (iii).

(i) The homemade stove was built *(from the rims of coal truck tires).(ii) The five horses were brought *(from New Delhi).(iii) This house is built/designed/constructed *(by a French architect

/yesterday/in ten days).6) A typical complex event of causation contains a causing process and a caused

(result) state, but this is not a structural constraint on complex event structures.

The causing sub-event may be a state, or the caused sub-event may be a process.

The former case will show up in 4.3 when we represent the event structure of (i)

below, and some causative verbs like walk and jump give a complex eventstructure with a result process.

(i) Harry died from AIDS complications.(ii) John walked the baby.


107

(54) a. John swam to the boat.

b. Marta loaded the hay onto the truck.

(55) [VP1 DP1 [V1’ V1 [VP2 [V2’ (DP2) V2 PPPPPPPPGGGG]]]]

As we have seen in section 3, Goal PPs are interpreted as composing a

result state. A Goal PP generated under the lower VP specifies the final

location of the Theme argument, which shows up as a direct object of

a transitive verb or as a subject of an intransitive verb. Then, the result

state will be composed of the Theme and the Goal. Thus, we represent

the event structure of (54a) as (56) below. The lexical verb swim does

not denote a complex event by itself, but the Goal PP extends the

simplex event (E1) to a complex one with a result state (E2). (54a)

entails the result state (E2) ‘John was at the boat,’ and the event

structure of (54b) entails ‘the hay was on the truck.’

(56) John swam to the boat.

E0:Transition


┃ ┃

[john SWIM] [john BE-AT the-boat]

We take the event structure (56) as a semantic structure that can be

mapped to its syntactic VP structure illustrated in (55). Thus, we

characterize the mapping as follows:

(57) Mapping-1: PPs constituting a result state are generated in the

lower VP.

Notice that the Goal PP is then treated exactly like a resultative phrase,

which evidently forms a result state in the following sentences.

언 어 학 제 호43108

(58) a. The potter baked the clay hard.

b. She cooked the food brown.

c. The dog barked the neighbors awake.

That is, each of the resultative phrases in (58) denotes a predicate of a

result state, and they are generated under the lower VP. As we

discussed in 3.2, again modifies a result state to give a restitutive

reading, then due to (57) Mapping-1 the adverb is also generated under

the lower VP.

4.2 Source PPs: Intermediate Locatives

Now let us consider the Source PPs in (59) below: We claim that

the Source PP adjuncts (PPS) should be generated under the higher

VP, so they scope over V1’ containing the lower VP2 as shown in

(60).

(59) a. John swam to the boat from the beach.

b. Marta sent the book from Chicago.

(60) [VP1 DP1 PPPPPPPPSSSS [V1’ V1 [VP2 [V2’ (DP2) V2 ]]]]

As we have seen in 3, the Source PPs do not compose a result state,

so do not affect the aspectual character of the verb. The Source

PP in (59a) indicates the initial point of John’s movement, so it is

represented as a modifier of the causing event in (61) below.7) (62)

states the mapping relation between the semantic structure of (61)

and the syntactic configuration of (60).

7) Again, the argument structure of the verb determines what entity is located

by the source PP: (59a) implies John’s change of location, and (59b) implies

the book’s change of location.


109

(61) John swam to the boat from the beach.

E0:Transition


∕ ∖ ┃

MOD E1 [John BE-AT the-boat]

┃ ┃

[from the beach] [John SWIM]

(62) Mapping-2: PPs modifying a causing event are generated under

the higher VP.

As we have seen in 3, there are other adverbials that modify the

causing sub-event (Process). For instance, subject-oriented adverbials like

reluctantly in (63a), temporal (frame) adverbials like in an hour in (63b),

and manner adverbials like clumsily in (63c). We claim that the

adverbials, just like Source PPs, are also generated under the higher

VP.

(63) a. The man reluctantly sold the car to me.

b. John painted a picture in an hour.

c. The boy clumsily spilled the beans over the floor.

Source PPs may have a non-locative reading, so we noted in 3.4 that

the PP from AIDS complications in (64) repeated below denotes the

cause of Harry’s death. That is, Harry’s state of being under AIDS

complications caused his death. Die lexically denotes an

achievement event, which may involve an external cause (i.e.,

killing action) with an Agent. (64) does not express an external

cause such as a ‘killing’ process but rather an internal cause, i.e.,

Harry’s state of being under AIDS complications.8) The event

structure of (64) is represented as (65) below, where the Source

8) (64) does not involve an active Agent role in the event, but an NP like death fromthe shooting overtly expresses an active causing event (Process) with a Source PP.

언 어 학 제 호43110

PP composes the causing sub-event, i.e., E1: State = [Harry

BE-UNDER AIDS complications].

(64) Harry died from AIDS complications. [cause]

(65) E0: Transition

∕ ∖E1: State E2: State

┃ ┃

[Harry BE-UNDER AIDS compl] [Harry BE dead]

4.3 Non-directional PPs: External Locatives

(66a,b) below contain a non-directional PP. The PP in the lake

in (66a) locates the event of John’s swimming to the boat, and at

the meeting locates the event of Marta’s meeting with Mary.9) We

claim that the non-directional PPs (PPND) are generated as a

VP1-adjunct as shown in (67).

(66) a. John swam to the boat in the lake.

b. Marta met Mary at the meeting.

(67) [VP1 PPPPPPPPNDNDNDND [VP1 DP1 [V1’ V1 [VP2 ... ]]]]

Non-directional PPs denote the location of the whole event that VP1

denotes, thus (68) represents the event structure of (66a).

9) (66a) has another reading where in the lake modifies the boat within the same DP.This adnominal reading of the PP is not of our concern here, but Maienborn

(2001) analyses this use of locative PPs as one of the three types of locative

modifiers in German.


111

(68) John swam to the boat in the lake.

E0

∕ ∖MODMODMODMOD E0:TransitionE0:TransitionE0:TransitionE0:Transition

┃ ∕ ∖[in the lake] E1:Process E2:State

┃ ┃

[John SWIM-ACT] [John BE-AT the-boat]

(68) implies that ‘John was in the lake’ and ‘the boat was in the

lake,’ since the PP in the lake locates the whole event of the

sentence. Now we propose the following mapping rule for the

non-directional locatives:

(69) Mapping-3: PPs modifying the whole event are generated adjoined

to the higher VP.

In 3.2, we noted that again and quickly can be ambiguous with respect

to their semantic scope. Thus, the adverbs in (70) repeated below can

modify either a sub-event (result state or process) or the whole event.

When they modify the whole event, the PPs should be generated

adjoined to the higher VP due to (69). Therefore, we can represent the

ambiguity of again as in the following:

(70) a. John drove to New York again.

b. The police quickly arrested John.

(71) a. John drove to New York again. [again in restitutive reading]

E0:Transition


┃ ∕ ∖[John DRIVE-ACT] MODMODMODMOD E2:StateE2:StateE2:StateE2:State

┃ ┃

[again] [John BE-AT New York]

언 어 학 제 호43112

b. John drove to New York again. [again in repetitive reading]

E0

∕ ∖MODMODMODMOD E0:TransitionE0:TransitionE0:TransitionE0:Transition

┃ ∕ ∖[again] E1:Process E2:State

┃ ┃

[John DRIVE-ACT] [John BE-AT New York]

Let us note that locative PPs in a sentence initial position lack a

directional reading. Thus, (72a) and (73a) are ambiguous: they have

both a directional and a non-directional reading. In contrast, (72b) and

(73b) lack a directional reading, so the PPs do not carry a goal

directional reading.

(72) a. John slipped in the bathtub.

b. In the bathtub John slipped.

(73) a. John jogged across the street.

b. Across the street John jogged.

As illustrated in (74), the sentence initial position also hosts a

sentence-level or a discourse-level adverbial (such as perspectival,

intensional, speech act oriented, or frame-setting adverbials). (74a,b) are

from Maienborn (2001). We are not dealing with these adverbials, since

they are independent of the event structure proposed here.

(74) a. In Argentina, Eva still is very popular.

b. In Italy, Lothar bought his suits in France.

c. Hopefully/Certainly, the war will end soon.


113

5. Concluding Remarks

Based on the extended VP-structure of Hale and Keyser (1993,

2002) and the event structure of Pustejovsky (1991, 1995), we proposed

a more explicit mapping between syntax and semantics of directional

PPs particularly Goal and Source locatives. We distinguished three–

syntactic base positions for locatives, and represented their semantic

scopes in event structure: (i) goal locative PPs are generated under the

lower VP and compose a result state sub-event; (ii) source locative PPs

are generated under the higher VP and modify a process sub-event; (iii)

non-directional locative PPs are generated adjoined to the higher VP

and scope over the whole event.

The syntactic behavior of Source and Goal PPs discussed in section

2 suggests in general that Goal PPs have more integrity with the verb

than Source PPs. We illustrated this contrast in terms of Preposition

Incorporation (2.2), Pseudo-passives (2.3), Movement (2.4), and Locative

Alternation (2.5). The semantics of Source and Goal locatives are

characterized largely in terms of scope: That is, their scope properties

in event structures are supported by the ambiguous readings of various

adverbs (like again, quickly, and rudely) (3.2), and, furthermore, by the

clear contrast in their contribution to aspectual interpretation (3.3).

In order to support the proposed account, we need to further

explore the syntactic and semantic characteristics of Source and Goal

locatives in relation to a wider range of PPs and adverbials. We have

neither dealt with intensional locative PPs (e.g., frame-setting,

perspectival, and speech act oriented locatives) nor with symmetric

path-type PPs (e.g., through the tunnel and over the bridge). However,

these PPs should be included in further research on locative

modification.

언 어 학 제 호43114

References

Alsina, Alex (1999) ‘On the Representation of Event Structure,’ in Tara

Mohanan and Lionel Wee (eds.) Grammatical Semantics Evidence

for Structure in Meaning. CSLI, Stanford. pp. 77-122.

Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function

Changing. Chicago University Press.

Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic

Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1979) The Prepositional Passive in English. Max

Niemeyer, Tuebingen.

Davidson, D. (1967) ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences,’ in N.

Rescher (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action. University of

Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg. Reprinted in D. Davidson (1980) Essay

on Actions and Events. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Dowty, D. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel,

Dordrecht.

Eckardt, R. (1998) Adverbs, Events, and Other Things: Issues in the

Semantics of Manner Adverbs. Tuebingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Ernst, T. (1998) ‘Scope Based Adjunct Licensing,’ in NELS 28. Amherst.

Ernst, T. (2000) ‘Manners and Events’ in J. Pustejovsky and C. Tenny

(eds.) (2000): 335-358.

Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument Structure. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.

Grimshaw, J. & S. Vikner. (1993) ‘Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure

of Events,’ in E. Reuland and W. Abraham (eds.) Knowledge and

Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure: 143-55. Kluwer

Publishers.

Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (1993) ‘On Argument Structure and the

Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations,’ in K. Hale and S. J.

Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 20. MIT Press. Cambridge,

MA.

Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (2002) Prolegomenon to a Theory of

Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 39. MIT Press.

Cambridge, MA.


115

Hornstein, N. and A. Weinberg (1981) ‘Case Theory and Preposition

Stranding’ Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55-92.

Jackendoff, R. (1983) Semantics and Cognition. MIT Press. Cambridge,

MA.

Jackendoff, R. (1990) Semantic Structures. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.

Kimenyi, A. (1980) A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. University of

California Press, Berkeley.

Koopman, H. (1997) ‘Prepositions, Postpositions, Circumpositions and

Particles: The Structure of Dutch PPs’ ms. UCLA.

Kracht, M. (2002) ‘On the Semantics of Locatives’ Linguistics and

Philosophy 25: 157-232.

Krifka, Manfred (1992) ‘Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal

Reference and Temporal Constitution,’ in I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi

(eds.) Lexical Matters. CSLI Publications. Stanford, California.

Larson, R. (1988) ‘On the Double Object Construction,’ Linguistic Inquiry

19: 335-392.

Lee, C., S. Nam, and B. Kang (1998) ‘Lexical Semantic Structure for

Predicates in Korean,’ in J. Bos and P. Buitelaar (eds.) Lexical

Semantics in Context. European Summer School in Logic,

Language and Information. U. of Saarbruecken, Germany.

Maienborn, C. (2001) ‘On the Position and Interpretation of Locative

Modifiers,’ Natural Language Semantics 9: 191-240.

McCawley, J. (1968) ‘Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Grammar

without Deep Structure,’ in B. Darden, C.N. Bailey, and A.

Davidson (eds.) Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago

Linguistics Society: 71-80. University of Chicago.

Munro, P. (2000) ‘The Leaky Grammar of the Chickasaw Applicatives,’

in Arika Okrent and John P. Boyle (eds.) The Proceedings from

the Main Session of the Chicago Linguistic Society’s Thirty-sixth

Meeting. Volume 36-1: 285-310. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Chicago.

Nam, S. (1995) Semantics of Locative Prepositional Phrases in English,

Doctoral dissertation. UCLA.

Parsons, T. (1990) Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in

언 어 학 제 호43116

Subatomic Semantics, Number 19 in Current Studies in

Linguistics, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.

Pustejovsky, J. (1991) ‘The Syntax of Event Structure,’ Cognition 41:

47-81.

Pustejovsky, J. (1995) The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press. Cambridge,

MA.

Pustejovsky, J. and C. Tenny (eds.) (2000) Events as Grammatical

Objects. CSLI Publications. Stanford, California.

Ramchand, G. (2003) First Phase Syntax, ms. University of Oxford.

Ritter, E. & S. Rosen (2000) ‘Event Structure and Ergativity,’ in J.

Pustejovsky and C. Tenny (eds.) (2000): 187-238.

Smith, C. (1991) Parameter of Aspect. Kluwer Academic Press.

Dordrecht.

Tenny, C. (1994) Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.

Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht.

Tenny, C. (2000) ‘Core Events and Adverbial Modification,’ in J.

Pustejovsky & C. Tenny (eds.) (2000): 285-334.

Travis, L. (2000) ‘Event Structure in Syntax’ in J. Pustejovsky & C.

Tenny (eds.) (2000): 145-185.

Vendler, Z. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press.

Ithaca, New York.

Verkuyl, H. (1993) A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge University

Press.


117

<Abstract><Abstract><Abstract><Abstract>

Directional Locatives in Event Structure

:Asymmetry between Goal and Source

Seungho Nam

This paper focuses on the syntactic and semantic asymmetry

between Goal (e.g., into the store) and Source locatives (e.g., from the

store), which have not been properly contrasted but classified as

directional locatives in the literature. Based on their syntactic and

semantic asymmetry, the paper argues that these locatives have distinct

underlying base positions in extended VP-structure and different

semantic scope/contribution in event structure. This paper claims: (i)

Goal PPs are generated under the lower VP2, and they semantically

compose a core event (result state) denoted by the lower VP2; (ii)

Source PPs are generated under the higher VP1, and semantically

modify the process sub-event. Source locatives do not compose a core

event. This paper identifies an interface principle between syntax and

semantics of Goal/Source locatives, and further argues that the interface

principle accounts for the non-directional readings of Goal/Source

phrases in natural language.

Key Words: goal, source, locative, event structure, argument, directional,

non-directional, incorporation, pseudo passive, adverbial

modification, aspectual composition, eventuality

논문접수 년 월 일: 2005 9 30

게재결정 년 월 일: 2005 12 20

Date post:	03-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Directional Locatives in Event Structure: Asymmetry between Goal...

Documents