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]]]
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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.’
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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.
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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.
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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)
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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.
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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
∕ ∖E1:Process E2:State
┃ ┃
[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.
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
109
(61) John swam to the boat from the beach.
E0:Transition
∕ ∖E1:Process E2:State
∕ ∖ ┃
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.
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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
∕ ∖E1:Process E2:State
┃ ∕ ∖[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.
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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.
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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.
Directional Locatives in Event Structure:Asymmetry between Goal And Source
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