Goal Source Leipzig

7/28/2019 Goal Source Leipzig

1/29

- 1 -

Goal and Source:

Asymmetry in their Syntax and Semantics

Seungho Nam(Seoul National University)

Presented at the workshop on Event Structures

March 17-19, 2004. Leipzig, Germany

This paper focuses on the syntactic and semantic asymmetry between Goal(e.g., into the store) and Source locatives (e.g., from the store). Based on theirsyntactic and semantic asymmetry, the paper argues that they have distinctunderlying base positions in extended VP-structure and further that they havedifferent semantic scope/contribution in event structure. Thus, we claim (i)Goal PPs are generated under the lower VP2, and they semantically compose acore event (result state: E2) denoted by the lower VP2. And (ii) Source PPs aregenerated under the higher VP1, and semantically modify the processsub-event (E1). Source locatives do not compose a core event. This paperidentifies an interface principle between syntax and semantics of Goal/Sourcelocatives, and further argues that the interface principle should account for thenon-directional readings of Goal/Source phrases in natural language.

Key Words: goal, source, locative, event structure, argument, directional,non-directional, incorpration, pseudo passive, adverbial modification, aspectualcomposition, eventuality

1. Goals

This paper focuses on the syntactic and semantic differencesbetween two types of directional PPs (i) Goal locatives (e.g., intothe store) and (ii) Source locatives (e.g., from the store). The contrastbetween their syntactic behavior is identified in variousconstructions, and we account for their asymmetry by assigning

them two distinct underlying base positions. Further, we argue thattheir systematic semantic differences are predicted by their differentsemantic scope in event structure.

Directional locatives can be divided into the following threetypes: (i) Goal locatives, (ii) Source locatives, and (iii) symmetricPath locatives. 'Goal' and 'Source' have been well defined in the


2/29

- 2 -

literature: If an event involves a movement of an object and itstrajectory, Goal designates the final/end point of the trajectory andSource the initial/starting point of the trajectory. Thus we use theterms 'Goal locatives' and 'Source locatives' to refer to the phrasesdesignating the initial point and the final point of a trajectory,respectively. Each language has a way of expressing Goal andSource: e.g., prepositional/postpositional phrases or affixes.

Jackendoff (1983, 1990), contrary to the treatment of RelationalGrammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, does not take thematic

roles like Source and Goal as grammatical primitives, but thenotions are defined in his lexical conceptual structure. Thus in

Jackendoff (1990), Goal and Source are defined as an argument ofPath-functions, [Path TO ([Place ])] and [Path FROM ([Place ])],respectively. (1) shows a conceptual structure of a sentence like Johncame to/from the office.

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

Prepositions like to, into and onto typically take a Goal argument,and from, from under, from behind, and off can take a Sourceargument.

Some other prepositions in English can bear either adirectional or a non-directional sense, so the sentences in (2) are allambiguous. (2a) means either (i) 'the suspect walked, staying insideof the store,' or (ii) 'the suspect walked into the store fromoutside.'

(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 whenthe sentence denotes a directional movement. That is, the PPs neverrefer to a source location, thus (2b) does not mean that 'Harryswam from under the bridge.' The prepositions in (2) do not carrya morpheme denoting a (goal) directional sense, but they can give agoal directional reading of a motion event. This is not true of many


3/29

- 3 -

other languages.There is another set of prepositions that behave differently

from Source or Goal. This includes through, over, across, past, andaround. They are categorized as 'symmetric prepositions' by Nam(1995), since they denote a symmetric relation between the sourceand goal regions of a movement. For instance, John threw the ballover the fence refers to a symmetric spatial relation such that 'thegoal location of the ball is on the other side of the fence from thesource location, and vice versa.' Thus, it does not matter from

which side of the fence the ball moved. Jackendoff (1990) usesvarious 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 theGoal-Source asymmetry in syntax, specifically in the structures ofPreposition Incorporation, Prepositional/Pseudo Passives,PP-dislocation and locative alternations. Section 3 shows thesemantic contrast between Goal and Source PPs with respect toadverbial modification and aspectual composition. Section 4proposes two distinct underlying base positions of Goal and Sourcelocatives, and accounts for the syntactic and semantic contrast interms of more fine-grained event structure. Further, we propose aset of mapping rules which link the locative PPs in event structureto their syntactic positions.

2. Goal-Source Asymmetry in Syntax2.1 Directional vs. Non-directional PPs

There has been much work on the dichotomy directional vs.non-directional PPs. Recently, Koopman (1997), and Travis (2000)among others. Koopman argues for the need of two locativefunctional heads in Dutch, i.e., 'Path' for directional PPs and 'Place'

1 Jackendoff (1990:47) says the direct object of transitive pass is understood as theargument of this Path-function [VIA-NEAR]; it is neither Source nor Goal norTheme in the usual sense. Further, he notes that the lexical verbs like pierce andjump lexically incorporate THROUGH (or VIA-IN) and OVER (or ACROSS),respectively.(i) The arrow pierced the target. (ii) John jumped the gorge.


4/29

- 4 -

for non-directional ones. She claims that prepositional PPs in Dutchcontain a functional category Place, but postpositional phrasesconsist of a functional projection of Path which embeds a PlacePhrase, as shown in (3).

(3) Het vliegtuig is [PathP [PlaceP vlak onder de brug] door] gevlogenThe airplane is right under the bridge] through] flown'The airplane flew right under the bridge.'

She argues for this structural configuration, illustrating varioussyntactic phenomena such as PP-Movement (pied-piping andPP-over-V movement), P-stranding and P-incorporation.Postpositional PPs in Dutch only have a directional reading, butprepositional PPs may have either a non-directional or a directionalreading. And their syntactic behavior clearly shows thatpostpositional PPs are more integrated with the verb thanprepositional PPs are. In other words, PPs with a directionalreading are more integrated with the predicate than those with anon-directional reading are.2

Maienborn (2001), dealing with only non-directional locativesin German, proposes three syntactic base positions for the locativePPs.

(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 'frame-setting modifier,'which often carries temporal reading, and the same PP in (4b) iscalled 'external modifier,' and on the last page in (4c) is called'internal modifier.' Maienborn (2001) claims that the three types oflocatives are generated in different base positions: The frame-setting

modifier of (4a) is generated in periphery of TopP(topic phrase),and modifies the whole event of the sentence. The external locative

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) containing a Localizer Phrase (LP).

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


5/29

- 5 -

of (4b) is generated in periphery of VP, and modifies theeventuality of the VP. Finally, the internal locative of (4c) isgenerated in periphery of V, and modifies the eventuality of the V.

2.2 Preposition Incorporation

Preposition incorporation reveals the Goal-Source asymmetry aswell 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 argumentsassociated with the applicatives are theta-marked ones, i.e., innerlocatives in the sense of Hornstein and Weinberg (1981). (5-6) ofKinyarwanda are quoted from Kimenyi (1980), and (7) of Chichewafrom Baker (1988).

(5) a. Umukoobwa a-ra-som-a igitabogirl SP-PRES-read-ASP book'The girl is reading the book.'

b. Umukoobwa a-ra-som-er-a umuhuungu igitabogirl SP-PRES-read-for-ASP boy book

'The girl is reading the book for the boy.'(6) a. Abaana b-iica-ye ku meezachildren SP-sit-ASP on table

b. Abaana b-iica-ye-ho ameezachildren SP-sit-ASP-on table'The children are sitting on the table.'

(7) a. Ndi-na-tumiz-a chipanda cha mowa kwamfumu1sS-PAST-send-ASP calabash of beer to chief'I sent a calabash of beer to the chief.'

b. Ndi-na-tumiz-ir-a mfumu chipanda cha mowa1sS-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 -erdenoting Benefactive role. The verbal complex in (6b) also containsan applicative suffix -ho 'on' instead of the lexical preposition ku'on' in (6a). (7a) has a lexical preposition kwa 'to', but in (7b) theapplicative suffix -ir 'to' (Goal) is incorporated into the verbal


6/29

- 6 -

complex. The following data from Kimenyi (1980) show that PI isimpossible from the outer locatives.

(8) a. Abaana b-iica-ye ku musozichildren SP-sit-ASP on mountain

b. *Abaana b-iica-ye-ho umusozichildren SP-sit-ASP-on mountain'The children are sitting on the mountain.'

Baker (1988) and Kimenyi (1980) illustrate few source locatives. Thefollowing is the sole example of PI with a Source argument inBaker (1988:240).

(9) Kambuku a-na-b-er-a mkango njinga.leopard SP-PAST-steal-APPL-ASP lion bicycle'The leopard stole the bicycle from the lion.'

Baker reports that the sentence also has a Benefactive reading: Thatis, 'The leopard stole the bicycle for the lion.' But the Sourcereading is possible because the Source argument is a true argumentof the verb 'to steal.' That is, steal does not take a Goal argument,

so *The man stole the book into his bag, but takes a Source as a trueargument.

Koopman (1997) shows that Dutch postpositions and particlescan incorporate to V deriving a directional interpretation whereasprepositions cannot due to their non-directional reading. Aprepositional PP may derive a goal directional reading, if it isselected by a motion verb. Thus (10a) has an incorporated(directional) preposition in between the auxiliary verb is and themain verb geklommen 'climb', and (10b) has a directionalpostposition door 'through' incorporated in gelopen after the auxiliaryverb is 'be.'

(10) a. omdat zij de boom is in geklommenbecause she the tree is in climbed'because they climbed into the tree'

b. omdat zij het bos is door gelopenbecause she the forest is through walked'because she walked through the forest'


7/29

- 7 -

Further, unlike Goal directional PPs, Dutch Source directional PPsdo not allow P-incorporation. Thus, the goal type particle heen maybe incorporated to V as in (11a), but the source type particlevandaan in (11b) may not.

(11) a. dat zij de jas over de stoel hebben heen gelegdthat 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 (?*vandaan) gekomen

that this book from under the bed is from come.'that this book came from under the bed'

Notice that van 'from' in (11b) shows up as a preposition. Thesource PPs with van, however, can be dislocated by pied-pipingand PP-over-V movement, while goal type PPs cannot. Thefollowing data are quoted from Koopman (1997, and pc).

(12) Movement of non-directional PPs:boven in welke la heb jij de sokken gelegdup 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 airplaine flown'Under which bridge did the airplane fly?'

b. *Welk bos in ben jij gelopenWhich forest in are you walked'Into which forest did you walk?'

c. *Zij zijn gelopen het bos door [PP-over-V movement]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 gelopenfrom which city are you walked'From which city did you walk?'

b. (?)Zij zijn gelopen van Amsterdamthey are walked from Amsterdam'They walked from Amsterdam.'


8/29

- 8 -

Munro (2000) illustrates that some verbs in Choctaw andChickasaw can occur with more than one applicative prefixes. Sheclaims there is a strong constraint against verbs with a total ofmore than four arguments. (15) show combinations of multipleapplicatives in Choctaw: i.e., comitative and dative in (a), andcomitative and benefactive in (b).3 The Chickasaw sentences in (16)also show combinations of applicatives among comitative, goal,source, and stative locatives.

(15) a. Charles-at [sa-baa]-[chi]-taloow-aachi.Charles-nom [lsII-com]-[2sIII:dat]-sing-irr'Charles will sing to you with me'

b. Lynn-at kaah [chi-baa]-[ami]-chopa-tok.Lynn-nomcar [2sII-com]-[1sIII:ben]-buy-pt'Lynn bought a car for me with 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 thecombinations, specifically in Chickasaw, is subject to the followingconstraint: Non-directional prefixes precede Source ones whichprecede Goal-directional ones. Thus the applicatives in (16), eventhough their combinations are somehow restricted, are prefixed tothe 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 differentlocative argument/adjuncts occupy different syntactic positions, and

further they modify different semantic domains.

3 The underlined vowels in (15a,b) are nasalized ones, which are phonemicallycontrastive to unmarked non-nasalized ones.


9/29

- 9 -

2.3 Prepositional (Peudo) Passives

Prepositional passives show a similar contrast between Goaland Source locatives. (17-19) illustrate active-passive pairs, where thepassive sentences have a stranded preposition, and its object NP ispromoted to the subject position. When a PP denotes a benefactive(17), goal (18), or comitative (19), its object NP is allowed to be thepassive 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. [comitative]b. Martha can't be roomed with by anyone.

When the PP denotes a circumstantial location or source, however,its NP is hardly found in the passive subject position. Thus, the(a)-sentences with a goal locative in (20-22) are acceptable, whereasthe (b)-sentences with a source locative sound bad.

(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 maygive 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) says "On the other hand, if some of thesesame examples are manipulated in order to express, say, motion +


10/29

- 10 -

direction (or resultative position) [e.g.., (23b) and (24b)] rather thanlocomotion + direction [e.g., (23a) and (24a)], then the notion inobject position becomes one of location and a passive is no longerpossible." Her distinction between motion and locomotion, however,does not seem to be responsible for the contrast here, since thesentence (25a) is ambiguous with the same motion verb: (i) 'the boywas running crossing the road,' and (ii) 'the boy was running onthe 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 thesentence is not ambiguous. It has a directional reading only, i.e.,'the road can be crossed by running only at great risk.' Thiscontrast shows that non-directional PPs do not undergopassivization, stranding the preposition. There are, however, someapparent counterexamples where non-directional PPs allowpassivization.

(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 thePPs carry an instrumental sense, i.e., the locations are used to servea certain purpose. But the acceptability does not seem to depend ontheir instrumental reading but what matters here is theirargumenthood. The PPs in (26) are semantically selected by theverbs live and sit, and their syntactic status is different from that ofthe 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 andsit, but the PP in (27) is not a true argument but an adjunctmodifying the whole event 'John's sleeping yesterday.' FollowingBaker's (1988) distinction, the PPs in (26) are theta-marked by the


11/29

- 11 -

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

2.4 Movement and Ordering

We have another syntactic evidence revealing the contrastbetween Source and Goal PPs: That is, Source PPs can be easilydislocated, while Goal PPs cannot. The Source PP from Los Angelesin (28) can move to the front by Topicalization, whereas the GoalPP to Chicago resists to move. This suggests that the Goal PP

behaves more like a true complement of the verb send than theSource 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 atemporal/aspectual PP. Thus, the PP from the library in (29) canmove over the durative adverbial for ten minutes, but the Goal PPto the library in (30) is not allowed to move over the time-frameadverbial 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 thelocation or the movement of Theme argument, i.e., the argument indirect object position. So (31a) entails that 'Mary was in the garden'and (31b) 'the hay moved onto the truck.'

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

4 Let us note here another type of locative PP which is not easy to be passivized.The following contains an orientational locative which does not refer to a goal or asource but refers to an orientation of trajectory. Thus its passive counterpart (ii)sounds bad.

(i) John advanced towards the house.

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


12/29

- 12 -

b. John loaded the hay onto the truck.

If the verbs take a Source PP, however, it may denote either thelocation of the subject argument or the location of the objectargument. That is, from the rooftop refers to the location of John (thesubject), and from the ground in (32b) refers to the source locationof the hay. In other words, we can say that the Source PP from therooftop 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 anobject is followed by an object-oriented PP and a subject-orientedPP in English, the former always precedes the latter. Therefore, thetwo PPs in (32a) cannot scramble as in (33a), but those in (32b) canscaramble as in (33b). (33a) may have a reading where 'the rooftopwas in the garden,' which is not the intended reading of (32a),though.

(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/themeargument but Source PPs may be oriented to subject argument. Thedata also show that two locative PPs oriented to the sameargument (e.g., Theme) can change their positions, but thoseoriented to different arguments cannot.

2.5 Locative Alternations

English and many other languages allow locative alternationslike the following:

(34) a. Bees are swarming in the garden. b. The garden swarms with bees.

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


13/29

- 13 -

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 inmany languages. In (34a), the intransitive verb swarm takes alocative PP in the garden, but the same location the garden shows upas a subject in (34b). (35) and (36) illustrate two more alternationpatterns between two transitive structures: Locative arguments is

not a direct object in (35a, 36a), but they show up as a direct objectin the other structures (35b, 36b).5

Locative PPs involved in such alternations are mostlyGoal-type locatives, i.e., the nouns of the PPs denote a goal/resultlocation of the relevant argument, typically a Theme. Thus, (34-36)entail 'bees are in the garden,' 'paint ends up being on the wall,'and 'flowers come to exist on the jacket,' respectively. Syntactically,the locative arguments are promoted to subject in (34) or to directobject in (35-36), and we claim that the promotion should be subjectto a syntactic constraint: That is, only V'-internal/inner locatives canbe promoted by locative alternation. In a more general context, weclaim that V-modifiers like Goal-type PPs allow locative alternationwhile VP-adjuncts like Source and Path-type PPs hardly do. Further,non-directional PPs - higher VP-adjuncts - do not participate inlocative alternation, either.

3. Directional PPs in Event Structure3.1 Lexical Complex Event Structure

Since Vendler (1967) characterized four classes of Aktionsarten,there have been many proposals on the complex lexical eventstructure: Dowty (1979), Jackendoff (1990), Grimshaw (1990), Parsons

5 There have been many proposals to account for these locative alternations.Pustejovsky (1991, 1995) accounts for the transitive alternations like the following interms of HEAD underspecification of event structure.

(i) The enemy sank the boat.(ii) The boat sank.

Further, Lee et al. (1998) and Alsina (1999) extend the underspecification method tolocative and causative alternations.


14/29

- 14 -

(1990), Pustejovsky (1991, 1995) among others. Most of themidentify the structure of an event with the organization of thearguments in the clause, and extends the lexical event structure tocompositional structures. The following illustrate some eventstructures of lexical verbs proposed in the literature. SinceMcCawley (1968) used CAUSE and BECOME in lexicaldecomposition of kill, i.e., 'CAUSE-BECOME-NOT-alive', they areaccepted 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: [Event1 CAUSE ([Thingx], [Event2 GO ([Thing y], [Path TO [Property OPEN]]

(39) Parsons 1990:close: (e)[Cul(e) & Agent(e, x) & (e')[Cul(e') & Theme(e', y) &

CAUSE(e,e') & (s)[Being-closed(s) & Theme(s, y) & Hold(s)& Become(e',s)]]]

(40) Pustejovsky 1991:John closed the door

E:Transition = e1:Process = [act(j,the-door) & not-closed(the-door)]+ e2:State = [closed(the-door)]

Notice that the event structures of Jackendoff and Parsons areembedding/recursive ones: In Jackendoff's lexical conceptualstructure of open, the outer event (Event1) embeds an inner event(Event2), and the outer event (e) of Parsons' representation (39)embeds an inner event (e'), which again contains a state (s). Inaddition to such recursive event structure, Pustejovsky proposes aparallel event structure: The whole event named 'transition' containstwo sub-events e1:Process and e2:State which are conjoined in

parallel, i.e., none of them embed the other. In section 4, we willadopt and extend the conjoined event structures in order to accountfor the event composition of locative PPs and predicates.


15/29

- 15 -

3.2 Adverbial Modification and Locative PPs in EventStructure

We argue that the various modes of locative PP semanticsrequire 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 interms of event structure. Let us consider a few adverbs which 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 contains a manner adverb, thus (41.i)shows the manner reading of rudely, where Harry might haveinterrupted others by banging the door. We can easily get suchmanner readings in (42a-b), too. Further, the sentences have anotherreading where the adverbs modify the whole event, i.e., they arepredicated of the whole event. Thus (41.ii) shows that rudely ispredicated of the whole event. In (42a) quickly means 'without delayor hesitation' when it modifies the whole event, and clumsily in(42b) means that the whole event was clumsy. Pustejovsky (1991)represents the ambiguous readings in his event structure as thefollowing.

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

a. E0:Transition

/ \E1:Process E2:State

/ \ | MOD E1:Process [harry is-not-in the-room]

| |[rudely] [harry departed]


16/29

- 16 -

b. E0:Transition/ \

MOD E0: Transition| / \

[rudely] E1:Process E2:State| |

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

(43a) represents the reading (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.

Let us now see another adverb again, so called repetitive adverb,which can be interpreted ambiguously in the following sentences.They are 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.

According to Dowty (1979), (44a) above is ambiguous: (i) the eventof John's closing the door is assumed to have occurred previously,(ii) the state of the door being closed is assumed to have existedpreviously, 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 wholeevent is repeated, while the second reading means that only theresult state of being closed is repeated. We have rather clearambiguity 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 beentogether in one piece, but not as the result of anyone's doing.

This type of ambiguity in adverbial modification rudely, quickly,again naturally suggests that each of the adverbs should begenerated in two distinct base positions, and the base positions can


17/29

- 17 -

fit into the extended VP structures: i.e., VP-internal subject structureof Koopman & Sportiche (1991); VP-shell structure of Larson (1988);and Hale and Keyser's (1993) division of L-syntax and S-syntax,among others. Further, we may find the positions of adverbials inCinque's (1999) universal hierarchy of functional head projectionsillustrated 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 i.e.,Asp-repetitive(I) on the line (i) above and Asp-repetitive(II) on theline (ii). He also identifies the positions of quickly at the twoprojections, i.e., Asp-celerative(I) and Asp-celerative(II).

Now let us consider how Goal and Source PPs interact with

the adverb again. Their syntactic behavior we discussed in section 2suggests that Goal PPs should be syntactically much closer to theverb 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 allowrestitutive (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 NewYork again. [ambiguous]b. John sent the book from NewYork again.

[repetitive reading only]

Again in (46a) gives two readings: (i) repetitive reading - 'the eventof John's driving to New York is repeated,' and (ii) restitutivereading - 'the state of John's being at New York isresumed/restituted.' The second reading does not imply that John


18/29

- 18 -

drove to New York previously. (46b) however, only gives arepetitive reading, and does not give a restitutive reading, since thesentence lacks an expression that may denote a result state. Thesame constrast holds for (47a) and (47b). We will see shortly thatthe semantic contrast between Source and Goal PPs can beaccounted for by assigning them two independent semantic scopesin the event structure.

3.3 Aspectual Division

Cinque (1999) and Travis (2000) identify (at least) twoaspectual domains in syntax, which Tenny (2000) labelshigher/viewpoint aspect and middle/situation aspect. We argue thatSource-type PPs scope over the whole situation aspect, so they,unlike Goal PPs, do not shift the aspectual character (situationaspect) of the inner event denoted by the lower VP.

(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 atime-frame adverbial like in ten minutes. When a Goal PP combineswith the verb, however, it changes the aspectual character of theverb, so the sentence denotes a telic event of accomplishment.Thus, (48b) is fine with a time-frame adverbial but it is bad with adurative 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) does. This contrastbetween Goal and Source PP on aspectual shift suggests that theGoal PPs can be treated just like an internal argument whichparticipate in aspectual composition. Tenny (1994), Verkuyl (1993),

and Krifka (1995) report that an internal argument like(incremental) theme determines the aspectual character of the VP.Thus we have the following aspectual alternation: The quantizedNPs like a house in (49a) and the whole tank of beer in (50a) makethe VP denote a telic event, but the unquantized (bare plural ormass) NPs like houses in (49b) and beer in (50b) compose an atelic


19/29

- 19 -

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, wepropose that Goal PPs are generated under the AspP, while SourcePPs are generated in a position higher than the AspP. We willimplement the asymmetry in the extended VP structure and eventstructure proposed shortly in section 4.

3.4 Non-locative Source PPs

Source PPs headed by from in English often give anon-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 AID 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 willreceive... [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 eventwhich caused a result state. In (51a) Harry's state of being underAIDS complications caused his death, and in (52a) the shootingevent caused no damage. We also find in (51b) and (52b) the same


20/29

- 20 -

semantic relation between a predicative noun (reports or damage)and a Source PP. Thus the sentences take these PPs as composinga causing sub-event of their event structures. Further, (53a) showsthat a Source PP can denote an Agent of passive sentences, andsuch Agent reading can be obtained in nominal constructions in(53b). If an Agent argument shows up in a complex event denotedby a transitive verb, it does not paly a role in its result state.Instead the Agent role is essential in its causing sub-event. We willsee that these non-locative readings of Source PPs can be properly

represented in the event structures proposed in 4.2.6

4. Proposal: Base Positions of Locative PPs and theirSemantic Scope

Here we adopt the extended VP structure of Hale and Keyser(1993), and propose three base positions where Goal PPs, SourcePPs, and non-directional PPs are generated. Further, extendingPustejovsky's (1991, 1995) event structure, we represent theirsemantic scope in event structure. A complex event contains at leasttwo conjoined sub-events: One is normally a Process which denotes

a causing sub-event, and the other is a State which denotes a resultstate.7

6 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 identifycausing 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).

7 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. Thecausing sub-event may be a state, or the caused sub-event may be a process. Theformer 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 event structurewith a result process.

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


21/29

- 21 -

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 PPcombines with V2 to form V2' as shown in (55). V2' may containan internal argument (Theme).

(54) a. John swam to the boat.b. Marta loaded the hay onto the truck.

(55) [VP1 DP1 [V1' V1 [VP2 [V2' (DP2) V2 PPG]]]]

As we have seen in section 3, Goal PPs are interpreted ascomposing a result state. A Goal PP generated under the lower VPspecifies the final location of Theme argument, which shows up asa direct object of a transitive verb or as a subject of an intransitiveverb. Then the result state will be composed of the Theme and theGoal. 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 onewith a result state (E2). (54a) entails the result state (E2) 'John was

at the boat,' and the event structure of (54b) should entail 'the haywas 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 which canbe mapped to its syntactic VP structure of (55). Thus, we

characterize the mapping as follows:

(57) Mapping-1: PPs constituting a result state are generated in thelower VP.

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


22/29

- 22 -

phrase, which evidently forms a result state in the followingsentences.

(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 predicateof a result state, and they are generated under the lower VP. As

we discussed in 3.2, again modifies a result state to give arestitutive reading, then due to (57) Mapping-1 the adverb is alsogenerated under the lower VP.

4.2. Source PPs: Intermediate Locatives

Now let us consider the Source PPs in (59) below: We claimthat the Source PP adjuncts (PPS) should be generated under thehigher VP, so they scope over V1' containing the lower VP2 asshown in (60).

(59) a. John swam to the boat from the beach.b. Marta sent the book from Chicago.(60) [VP1 DP1 PPS [V1' V1 [VP2 [V2' (DP2) V2 ]]]]

As we have seen in 3, the Source PPs do not compose the resultstate, so do not affect the aspectual character of the verb. TheSource 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.8 (62) states the mapping relation between the semanticstructure of (61) and the syntactic configuration of (60).

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

8 Again, the meaning of the verb determines what entity is located by the sourcePP: (59a) implies John's change of location, and (59b) implies the book's change oflocation.


23/29

- 23 -

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 underthe higher VP.

As we have seen in 3, there are other adverbials that modify thecausing sub-event (Process). For instance, subject-oriented adverbialslike reluctantly in (63a), temporal (frame) adverbials like in an hourin (63b), and manner adverbials like clumsily in (63c). We claimthat the adverbials, just like Source PPs, are also generated underthe 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.

Some verbs of removing like empty, remove, clear and wipe take aSource PP as a core argument as in (64). Then the PP should begenerated in the lower V2' just like Goal PPs.

(64) a. They emptied water from the tank.b. He wiped crumbs off the table.

Source PPs may have a non-locative reading, so we noted in 3.4that the PP from AIDS complications in (65) repeated below denotesthe cause of Harry's death. That is, Harry's state of being underAIDS complications caused his death. Die lexically denotes an

achievement event, which may involve an external cause (i.e., killingaction) and an Agent. (65) does not express an external cause like'killing' process, but has an internal cause, i.e., Harry's state ofbeing under AIDS complications.9 The event structure of (65) is

9 (65) does not involve an active Agent role in the event, but an NP like death


24/29

- 24 -

represented as (66) below, where the Source PP composes thecausing sub-event, i.e., E1:Sate = [harry BE-UNDER AIDScomplications].

(65) Harry died from AIDS complications. [cause](66) E0:Transition

/ \E1:State E2:State

| |[harry BE-UNDER AIDS compl] [harry BE dead]

4.3. Non-directional PPs: External Locatives

(67a,b) below contain a non-directional PP. The PP in the lakein (67a) locates the event of John's swimming to the boat, and atthe meeting locates the event of Marta's meeting with Mary.10 Weclaim that the non-directional PPs (PPND) are generated as aVP1-adjunct as shown in (68).

(67) a. John swam to the boat in the lake.b. Marta met Mary at the meeting.

(68) [VP1 PPND [VP1 DP1 [V1' V1 [VP2 ... ]]]]

Non-directional PPs denote the location of the whole event thatVP1 denotes, thus (69) represents the event structure of (67a).

(69) John swam to the boat in the lake.E0

/ \MOD E0:Transition

| / \[in the lake] E1:Process E2:State

| |

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

from the shooting overtly expresses an active causing event (Process) with a SourcePP.

10 (67a) has another reading where in the lake modifies the boat within the sameDP. 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 locativemodifiers in German.


25/29

- 25 -

(69) implies that 'John was in the lake' and 'the boat was in thelake,' since the PP in the lake locates the whole event of thesentence. Now we have the following mapping rule for thenon-directional locatives:

(70) Mapping-3: PPs modifying the whole event are generatedadjoined to the higher VP.

In 3.2, we noted that again and quickly may be ambiguous withrespect to their semantic scope. Thus the adverbs in (71) repeatedbelow can modify either a sub-event (result state or process) or thewhole event. When they modify the whole event, the PPs shouldbe generated adjoined to the higher VP due to (70). Thus we canrepresent the ambiguity of again as in the following:

(71) a. John drove to New York again.b. The police quickly arrested John.

(72) a. John drove to New York again. [again in restitutive reading]E0:Transition


| / \[john DRIVE-ACT] MOD E2:State

| |[again] [john BE-AT New York]

b. John drove to New York again. [again in repetitive reading]E0

/ \MOD E0: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 hardlygive a directional reading. Thus (73a) and (74a) are ambiguous: they


26/29

- 26 -

have both a directional and a non-directional reading. But (73b) and(74b) lack a directional reading, so the PPs do not carry a goaldirectional reading.

(73) a. John slipped in the bathtub.b. In the bathtub John slipped.

(74) a. John jogged across the street.b. Across the street John jogged.

As illustrated in (75), the sentence initial position also hosts asentence-level or a discourse-level adverbial (such as perspectival,intensional, speech act oriented, or frame-setting adverbials). (75a,b)are from Maienborn (2001). We are not dealing with theseadverbials, since they are independent of the event structureproposed here.

(75) 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.

5. Concluding Remarks

Based on the extended VP-structure of Hale and Keyser (1993)and the event structure of Pustejovsky (1991, 1995), we proposed amore explicit mapping between syntax and semantics of directionalPPs particularly Goal and Source PPs. We distinguished threesyntactic base positions for locatives, and represented their semanticscopes in event structure: (i) goal locative PPs are generated underthe lower VP and compose a result state sub-event, (ii) sourcelocative PPs are generated under the higher VP and modify aprocess sub-event, and (iii) non-directional locative PPs aregenerated 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 integritywith the verb than Source PPs do. We illustrated their contrast interms of Preposition Incorporation (2.2), Pseudo-passives (2.3),Movement (2.4), and Locative Alternation (2.5). The semantics of


27/29

- 27 -

Source and Goal locatives is characterized largely in terms of scope:That is, their scope properties in event structures are supported bythe ambiguous readings of various adverbs (like again, quickly, andrudely) (3.2), and further by the clear contrast in their contributionto aspectual interpretation (3.3).

In order to support the proposed account, we need furtherexplore their syntactic and semantic characteristics in relation towider range of PPs and adverbials. We have neither dealt withintensional locative PPs (e.g., frame-setting, perspectival, and speech

act oriented locatives) nor with Path-type PPs (e.g., through thetunnel and over the bridge). But these PPs should be included infurther research on locative modification.

References

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

Mohanan and Lionel Wee (eds.) Grammatical Semantics Evidence for Structurein 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. ClarendonPress, Oxford.

Dowty, D. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht.Eckardt, R. (1998) Adverbs, Events, and Other Things: Issues in the Semantics ofManner Adverbs. Tuebingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Ernst, T. (1998) 'Scope Based Adjunct Licensing,' in NELS 28. Amherst, GLSA.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


28/29

- 28 -

View from Building 20. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (1993) Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument

Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 39. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.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.Koopman, H. & D. Sportiche (1991) 'The Position of Subjects,' Lingua 85:211-258.

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.) FourthRegional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 71-80. University ofChicago.

Munro, P. (2000) 'The Leaky Grammar of the Chickasaw Applicatives,' in

Arika Okrent and John P. Boyle (eds.) The Proceedings from the Main Sessionof 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, Doctoraldissertation. UCLA.

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


29/29

- 29 -

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.

Department of Linguistics, Seoul National UniversitySillim-dong San 56-1, Kwanak-ku, Seoul, 151-742, KOREAE-mail: [email protected]: http://cl.snu.ac.kr/nam

Documents

Goal Source Leipzig