You are on page 1of 29

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 their syntactic and semantic asymmetry, the paper argues that they have distinct underlying base positions in extended VP-structure and further that they have different semantic scope/contribution in event structure. Thus, we claim (i) Goal PPs are generated under the lower VP2, and they semantically compose a core event (result state: E2) denoted by the lower VP2. And (ii) Source PPs are generated under the higher VP1, and semantically modify the process sub-event (E1). 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 should account for the non-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, aspectual composition, eventuality

1. Goals
This paper focuses on the syntactic and semantic differences between two types of directional PPs (i) Goal locatives (e.g., into the store) and (ii) Source locatives (e.g., from the store). The contrast between their syntactic behavior is identified in various constructions, and we account for their asymmetry by assigning them two distinct underlying base positions. Further, 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

- 1 -

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. Jackendoff (1983, 1990), contrary to the treatment of Relational Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, does not take thematic roles like Source and Goal as grammatical primitives, but the 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. (1) shows a conceptual structure of a sentence like John came 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 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. b. c. d. The suspect walked in the store. Harry swam under the bridge. Chris drew the box behind the curtain. The boys jumped on the bed.

Notice that each of the PPs in (2) only gives a Goal reading when the 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 is not true of many

- 2 -

and accounts for the syntactic and semantic contrast in terms of more fine-grained event structure. it does not matter from which side of the fence the ball moved. THROUGH (= VIA-IN). 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. Prepositional/Pseudo Passives. it is neither Source nor Goal nor Theme in the usual sense. (ii) John jumped the gorge. he notes that the lexical verbs like pierce and jump lexically incorporate THROUGH (or VIA-IN) and OVER (or ACROSS).e. non-directional PPs. and vice versa. Section 4 proposes two distinct underlying base positions of Goal and Source locatives. PP-dislocation and locative alternations. OVER. specifically in the structures of Preposition Incorporation.other languages.1 The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 illustrates the Goal-Source asymmetry in syntax. Further. This includes through. past.. i. Koopman argues for the need of two locative functional heads in Dutch. Jackendoff (1990) uses various path functions for the symmetric prepositions. etc. Section 3 shows the semantic contrast between Goal and Source PPs with respect to adverbial modification and aspectual composition. respectively. Goal-Source Asymmetry in Syntax 2. 2. and around. we propose a set of mapping rules which link the locative PPs in event structure to their syntactic positions. Koopman (1997). .' Thus. 'Path' for directional PPs and 'Place' 1 Jackendoff (1990:47) says the direct object of transitive pass is understood as the argument of this Path-function [VIA-NEAR]. over. For instance.. There is another set of prepositions that behave differently from Source or Goal.3 - . since they denote a symmetric relation between the source and goal regions of a movement. and VIA-NEAR. (i) The arrow pierced the target. ACROSS.1 Directional vs.g. across. and Travis (2000) among others. They are categorized as 'symmetric prepositions' by Nam (1995). Non-directional PPs There has been much work on the dichotomy directional vs. Recently. Further. e.

' respectively. In other words.' and on the last page in (4c) is called 'internal modifier. (3) Het vliegtuig is [PathP [PlaceP vlak onder de brug] door] gevlogen The airplane is right under the bridge] through] flown 'The airplane flew right under the bridge. [DP the table]]] . Eva signed the contract on the last page. and modifies the whole event of the sentence.' which often carries temporal reading. Eva signed the contract in Argentina.4 - . She claims that prepositional PPs in Dutch contain a functional category Place. The external locative 2 Kracht (2002) also identifies directional and 'Modalizer' and 'Localizer. Thus below as a Modalizer Phrase (MP) containing a (i) The cat appeared [MP from [LP under non-directional senses in terms of he analyses the whole PP in (i) Localizer Phrase (LP). dealing with only non-directional locatives in German. In Argentina. and the same PP in (4b) is called 'external modifier.' She argues for this structural configuration. P-stranding and P-incorporation.2 Maienborn (2001). illustrating various syntactic phenomena such as PP-Movement (pied-piping and PP-over-V movement). And their syntactic behavior clearly shows that postpositional PPs are more integrated with the verb than prepositional PPs are.' Maienborn (2001) claims that the three types of locatives are generated in different base positions: The frame-setting modifier of (4a) is generated in periphery of TopP(topic phrase). but postpositional phrases consist of a functional projection of Path which embeds a Place Phrase. Eva still is very popular. c. but prepositional PPs may have either a non-directional or a directional reading. The PP in Argentina in (4a) is classified as 'frame-setting modifier. proposes three syntactic base positions for the locative PPs.for non-directional ones. as shown in (3). Postpositional PPs in Dutch only have a directional reading. PPs with a directional reading are more integrated with the predicate than those with a non-directional reading are. b. (4) a.

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. Umukoobwa a-ra-som-er-a umuhuungu igitabo girl SP-PRES-read-for-ASP boy book 'The girl is reading the book for the boy. Abaana b-iica-ye-ho ameeza children SP-sit-ASP-on table 'The children are sitting on the table. non-directional locatives. inner locatives in the sense of Hornstein and Weinberg (1981). The verbal complex in (6b) also contains an applicative suffix -ho 'on' instead of the lexical preposition ku 'on' in (6a). (5-6) of Kinyarwanda are quoted from Kimenyi (1980). (5) a. and claims that the arguments associated with the applicatives are theta-marked ones. Baker (1988) illustrates that the PPs of Dative and Goal are most common in preposition incorporation.' (6) a.. the internal locative of (4c) is generated in periphery of V. i. and modifies the eventuality of the VP. but in (7b) the applicative suffix -ir 'to' (Goal) is incorporated into the verbal .2 Preposition Incorporation Preposition incorporation reveals the Goal-Source asymmetry as well as the contrast between directional vs. and (7) of Chichewa from Baker (1988). (7a) has a lexical preposition kwa 'to'.e.' (7) a. Ndi-na-tumiz-a chipanda cha mowa kwa mfumu 1sS-PAST-send-ASP calabash of beer to chief 'I sent a calabash of beer to the chief.' b. Finally.' b. and modifies the eventuality of the V. 2.' The verbal complex of (5b) contains an applicative suffix -er denoting Benefactive role.of (4b) is generated in periphery of VP. Abaana b-iica-ye ku meeza children SP-sit-ASP on table b.5 - . Umukoobwa a-ra-som-a igitabo girl SP-PRES-read-ASP book 'The girl is reading the book.

(8) a.' But the Source reading is possible because the Source argument is a true argument of the verb 'to steal. *Abaana b-iica-ye-ho umusozi children SP-sit-ASP-on mountain 'The children are sitting on the mountain. if it is selected by a motion verb. but takes a Source as a true argument. leopard SP-PAST-steal-APPL-ASP lion bicycle 'The leopard stole the bicycle from the lion. steal does not take a Goal argument.' That is. omdat zij de boom is in geklommen because she the tree is in climbed 'because they climbed into the tree' b. Thus (10a) has an incorporated (directional) preposition in between the auxiliary verb is and the main verb geklommen 'climb'. 'The leopard stole the bicycle for the lion. so *The man stole the book into his bag. Abaana b-iica-ye ku musozi children SP-sit-ASP on mountain b. 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.' (10) a. 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.6 - . A prepositional PP may derive a goal directional reading.complex. and (10b) has a directional postposition door 'through' incorporated in gelopen after the auxiliary verb is 'be. The following data from Kimenyi (1980) show that PI is impossible from the outer locatives.' Baker (1988) and Kimenyi (1980) illustrate few source locatives. omdat zij het bos is door gelopen because she the forest is through walked 'because she walked through the forest' .' Baker reports that the sentence also has a Benefactive reading: That is.

(?)Zij zijn gelopen van Amsterdam they are walked from Amsterdam 'They walked from Amsterdam.Further. dat dit book (van) onder het bed is (?*vandaan) gekomen that this book from under the bed is from come. *Welk bos in ben jij gelopen Which forest in are you walked 'Into which forest did you walk?' c.' . while goal type PPs cannot. The following data are quoted from Koopman (1997. *Zij zijn gelopen het bos door [PP-over-V movement] they are walked the forest through 'They walked through the forest. (11) a. unlike Goal directional PPs. 'that this book came from under the bed' Notice that van 'from' in (11b) shows up as a preposition. Dutch Source directional PPs do not allow P-incorporation. the goal type particle heen may be incorporated to V as in (11a). *Onder welke brug door is het vliegtuig gevlogen Under which bridge through is the airplaine flown 'Under which bridge did the airplane fly?' b. can be dislocated by pied-piping and PP-over-V movement. however. but the source type particle vandaan in (11b) may not. (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. and pc). The source PPs with van. dat zij de jas over de stoel hebben heen gelegd that they the coat over the chair have prt put 'that they laid the coat over the chair' b. Thus.7 - . van welke brug ben jij gelopen from which city are you walked 'From which city did you walk?' b.' (14) Movement of Source directional PPs with van: a.

.'to') b. which are phonemically contrastive to unmarked non-nasalized ones. Lynn-nom car [2sII-com]-[1sIII:ben]-buy-pt 'Lynn bought a car for me with you' (16) a.b) are nasalized ones. are prefixed to the verb in the following order: [aa-](non-directional locative) + [imaa-](source directional) + [okaa-](goal directional) + [in-](dative) + verb-root. source.Munro (2000) illustrates that some verbs in Choctaw and Chickasaw can occur with more than one applicative prefixes.'into') Munro notes that the order of the prefixes in the combinations. comitative and dative in (a).e. Thus the applicatives in (16). (15) show combinations of multiple applicatives in Choctaw: i.8 - . and comitative and benefactive in (b). (15) a. Charles-at [sa-baa]-[chi]-taloow-aachi. Lynn-at kaah [chi-baa]-[ami]-chopa-tok. [aa-imaa]-chompa [in-from]-buy 'buy from in' (non-directional aa.3 The Chickasaw sentences in (16) also show combinations of applicatives among comitative.. [ibaa-in]-taloowa [with-to]-sing 'sing to with' (directional in.'in') c. This applicative prefix ordering suggests that the different locative argument/adjuncts occupy different syntactic positions. Charles-nom [lsII-com]-[2sIII:dat]-sing-irr 'Charles will sing to you with me' b. 3 The underlined vowels in (15a. She claims there is a strong constraint against verbs with a total of more than four arguments. is subject to the following constraint: Non-directional prefixes precede Source ones which precede Goal-directional ones. goal. specifically in Chickasaw. ibaa-okaa-malli [with-into]-jump 'jump into with' (directional okaa. even though their combinations are somehow restricted. and further they modify different semantic domains. and stative locatives.

(21) a. [goal] *The store can be run from in a matter of minutes. (22) a. When a PP denotes a benefactive (17). (23) a. [goal] He was spoken to by several magistrates. b. b. its NP is hardly found in the passive subject position. its object NP is allowed to be the passive subject. b. [source] The house was moved into three weeks ago. however. The road could be driven across only at great risk *The road could be played across only at great risk The gate mustn't be gone beyond *The gate mustn't be played beyond Couper-Kuhlen (1979:54) says "On the other hand. (The data are quoted from Couper-Kuhlen 1979). goal (18). the (a)-sentences with a goal locative in (20-22) are acceptable. b. b. (20) a. motion + . b.2. [source] If the boat is jumped into it may capsize. and its object NP is promoted to the subject position. Thus. if some of these same examples are manipulated in order to express. or comitative (19). [benefactive] John's widow was provided for by his surviving brother. (19) a. whereas the (b)-sentences with a source locative sound bad. Several magistrates spoke to him. [goal] *If the boat is jumped from it may capsize. [source] Now consider the following minimal pairs. The store can be run to in a matter of minutes. When the PP denotes a circumstantial location or source.9 - . (24) a. b. His surviving brother provided for John's widow. (17-19) illustrate active-passive pairs. Anyone cannot room with Martha. say. (17) a. (18) a. b. [comitative] Martha can't be roomed with by anyone.3 Prepositional (Peudo) Passives Prepositional passives show a similar contrast between Goal and Source locatives. where the same PP may give a directional reading or a non-directional reading. [goal] ?*The house was moved from three weeks ago. where the passive sentences have a stranded preposition.

however. 'the road can be crossed by running only at great risk. stranding the preposition. does not seem to be responsible for the contrast here. But the acceptability does not seem to depend on their instrumental reading but what matters here is their argumenthood." Her distinction between motion and locomotion. That is.e. and their syntactic status is different from that of the PPs in the following. Kouper-Kuhlen (1979:64) says that (26a-b) are acceptable since the PPs carry an instrumental sense. (23a) and (24a)]. The road can be run across only at great risk. The PPs in (26) are semantically selected by the verbs live and sit.e. (26) a. the locations are used to serve a certain purpose..' and (ii) 'the boy was running on the other side of the road. the PPs in (26) are theta-marked by the . (23b) and (24b)] rather than locomotion + direction [e. There are. i. It has a directional reading only. (25b) contains the same verb and preposition in passive. b. This house cannot be lived in any longer...g.' (25) a. This cart must not be sat in by more than two people at once. *New York was slept in by John yesterday. but the sentence is not ambiguous. b.' This contrast shows that non-directional PPs do not undergo passivization. John slept in New York yesterday.g. since the sentence (25a) is ambiguous with the same motion verb: (i) 'the boy was running crossing the road. however.direction (or resultative position) [e.. the PPs in (26) are true arguments of the verbs live and sit.10 - . i. The boy was running across the street. but the PP in (27) is not a true argument but an adjunct modifying the whole event 'John's sleeping yesterday. b.' Following Baker's (1988) distinction. some apparent counterexamples where non-directional PPs allow passivization. then the notion in object position becomes one of location and a passive is no longer possible. (27) a..

. i. So (31a) entails that 'Mary was in the garden' and (31b) 'the hay moved onto the truck. while that of (27) is not.. Thus its passive counterpart (ii) sounds bad. From Los Angeles John sent the letter to Chicago. He ran to the library in ten minutes.' (31) a. whereas the Goal PP to Chicago resists to move. He ran for ten minutes from the library. Source PPs can be easily dislocated. the PP from the library in (29) can move over the durative adverbial for ten minutes.4 2. This suggests that the Goal PP behaves more like a true complement of the verb send than the Source PP does. Thus. combining with a transitive verb. b. Goal PPs. ??To Chicage John sent the letter from Los Angeles. He ran from the library for ten minutes. always specify the location or the movement of Theme argument. while Goal PPs cannot. Now we note that a Source PP is more ready to scramble with a temporal/aspectual PP. the argument in direct object position.11 - . b. but the Goal PP to the library in (30) is not allowed to move over the time-frame adverbial in ten minutes. (28) a. 4 Let us note here another type of locative PP which is not easy to be passivized.e.verb. ??He ran in ten minutes to the library. The Source PP from Los Angeles in (28) can move to the front by Topicalization. (29) a. The following contains an orientational locative which does not refer to a goal or a source but refers to an orientation of trajectory. (30) a.4 Movement and Ordering We have another syntactic evidence revealing the contrast between Source and Goal PPs: That is. (ii) ??The house was advanced towards by John. b. (i) John advanced towards the house. John saw Mary in the garden.

⇔ .5 Locative Alternations English and many other languages allow locative alternations like the following: (34) a. Theme) can change their positions. Therefore.g. b. In other words. but those in (32b) can scaramble as in (33b). and from the ground in (32b) refers to the source location of the hay. (33) a.b. we can say that the Source PP from the rooftop in (32a) is 'subject-oriented' and the other PPs in (32a-b) are 'object-oriented. if an object is followed by an object-oriented PP and a subject-oriented PP in English.' which is not the intended reading of (32a). John saw Mary in the garden from the rooftop. however. John sprayed paint on the wall. though. from the rooftop refers to the location of John (the subject). (33a) may have a reading where 'the rooftop was in the garden. Bees are swarming in the garden. it may denote either the location of the subject argument or the location of the object argument.. We have seen that Goal PPs are always oriented to object/theme argument but Source PPs may be oriented to subject argument. John loaded the hay onto the truck from the ground. We note here that the PPs are not free in ordering: That is. but those oriented to different arguments cannot. (35) a.12 - .' (32) a. That is. The data also show that two locative PPs oriented to the same argument (e. *John saw Mary from the rooftop in the garden. 2. The garden swarms with bees. b. the former always precedes the latter. ⇔ b. the two PPs in (32a) cannot scramble as in (33a). John loaded the hay onto the truck. If the verbs take a Source PP. (?)John loaded the hay from the ground onto the truck.

36b). but the same location the garden shows up as a subject in (34b). i. In a more general context. typically a Theme. Thus. but they show up as a direct object in the other structures (35b. 36a). we claim that V-modifiers like Goal-type PPs allow locative alternation while VP-adjuncts like Source and Path-type PPs hardly do. The woman embroidered flowers on the jacket..' and 'flowers come to exist on the jacket. Grimshaw (1990). Syntactically. 1995) accounts for the transitive alternations like the following in terms of HEAD underspecification of event structure. ⇔ b. Further.e.13 - . non-directional PPs . In (34a). Jackendoff (1990).5 Locative PPs involved in such alternations are mostly Goal-type locatives. there have been many proposals on the complex lexical event structure: Dowty (1979). 3. Further. the nouns of the PPs denote a goal/result location of the relevant argument. John sprayed the wall with paint.b. the intransitive verb swarm takes a locative PP in the garden.' respectively.higher VP-adjuncts . These alternation patterns have been attested and well described in many languages. Parsons 5 There have been many proposals to account for these locative alternations. (ii) The boat sank. either. . only V'-internal/inner locatives can be promoted by locative alternation. (i) The enemy sank the boat. (35) and (36) illustrate two more alternation patterns between two transitive structures: Locative arguments is not a direct object in (35a. (34-36) entail 'bees are in the garden. Directional PPs in Event Structure 3.' 'paint ends up being on the wall. (1998) and Alsina (1999) extend the underspecification method to locative and causative alternations. the locative arguments are promoted to subject in (34) or to direct object in (35-36).1 Lexical Complex Event Structure Since Vendler (1967) characterized four classes of Aktionsarten. Pustejovsky (1991. Lee et al. (36) a. The woman embroidered the jacket with not participate in locative alternation. and we claim that the promotion should be subject to a syntactic constraint: That is.

In addition to such recursive event structure.e. Dowty (1979) and Jackendoff (1993.14 - . and the outer event (e) of Parsons' representation (39) embeds an inner event (e'). and extends the lexical event structure to compositional structures. the outer event (Event1) embeds an inner event (Event2). none of them embed the other.the-door) & not-closed(the-door)] + e2:State = [closed(the-door)] Notice that the event structures of Jackendoff and Parsons are embedding/recursive ones: In Jackendoff's lexical conceptual structure of open. 1990) take them as major primitive concepts in event/proposition structure. Pustejovsky (1991. Most of them identify the structure of an event with the organization of the arguments in the clause. [Event2 GO ([Thing y]. we will adopt and extend the conjoined event structures in order to account for the event composition of locative PPs and predicates. Thus..e') & (s)[Being-closed(s) & Theme(s. they are accepted as primitives in many proposals. Pustejovsky proposes a parallel event structure: The whole event named 'transition' contains two sub-events e1:Process and e2:State which are conjoined in parallel. y) & CAUSE(e.]]] (38) Jackendoff 1990: open: [Event1 CAUSE ([Thing x]. i. 1995) among others. x) & (e')[Cul(e') & Theme(e'.)] CAUSE [BECOME[.(1990). (37) Dowty 1979: open: [[DO(.e.. Since McCawley (1968) used CAUSE and BECOME in lexical decomposition of kill.. y) & Hold(s) & Become(e'.s)]]] (40) Pustejovsky 1991: John closed the door E:Transition = e1:Process = [act(j. . i... The following illustrate some event structures of lexical verbs proposed in the literature.. 'CAUSE-BECOME-NOT-alive'. [Path TO [Property OPEN]] (39) Parsons 1990: close: (e)[Cul(e) & Agent(e. which again contains a state (s). In section 4.

E0:Transition / \ E1:Process E2:State / \ | MOD E1:Process [harry is-not-in the-room] | | [rudely] [harry departed] .15 - . b. John clumsily spilled the beans.' (ii) 'the event of Harry's departing the room was rude. Pustejovsky (1995).. Pustejovsky (1991) represents the ambiguous readings in his event structure as the following. and clumsily in (42b) means that the whole event was clumsy. In (42a) quickly means 'without delay or hesitation' when it modifies the whole event. they are predicated of the whole event. (43) Pustejovsky (1991): Harry departed the room rudely.' (42) a. Alsina (1999). The three sentences above contains a manner adverb.ii) shows that rudely is predicated of the whole event. the sentences have another reading where the adverbs modify the whole event. (i) 'Harry's way of departing the room was rude. thus (41. where Harry might have interrupted others by banging the door. Thus (41. a. Let us consider a few adverbs which can be interpreted ambiguously as in the following: (41) a. We can easily get such manner readings in (42a-b). Further. i.i) shows the manner reading of rudely.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. The police quickly arrested John. Eckardt (1998) and Ernst (1998) account for (scopally) ambiguous adverbial modification in terms of event structure. too.e. Tenny (2000). and Travis (2000) identify outer (causing) event and inner (caused/core) event. Harry departed the room rudely.

so (44b) implies either (i) the whole event denoted by the sentence (interpreted positively) previously occurred. not necessarily as a result of John's action. / MOD | [rudely] E0:Transition \ E0: Transition / \ E1:Process E2:State | | [harry departed] [harry is-not-in the-room] (43a) represents the reading (41. c. According to Dowty (1979).e. They are quoted from Dowty (1979). (44a) above is ambiguous: (i) the event of John's closing the door is assumed to have occurred previously. and the second 'restitutive' reading. (44) a. b. i. the manner reading of rudely.e.ii) where the modifier (MOD) scopes over the whole event E0. but John put it on the shelf again. d. i. again naturally suggests that each of the adverbs should be generated in two distinct base positions. while the second reading means that only the result state of being closed is repeated. or (ii) 'Humpty Dumpty is assumed to have previously been together in one piece. The book had fallen down. and (43b) represents the reading of (41. John fell asleep during the lecture. which can be interpreted ambiguously in the following sentences. and the base positions can . (ii) the state of the door being closed is assumed to have existed previously.16 - . John closed the door again. We have rather clear ambiguity in (44b-d).. In other words. but not as the result of anyone's doing.. so called repetitive adverb. Let us now see another adverb again.b. Tenny (2000) calls the first reading 'repetitive'. This type of ambiguity in adverbial modification rudely. quickly.i). but Mary quickly shook him awake again. the first reading indicates that the whole event is repeated. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

John drove to New York again.. [Asp-celerative(I) [T(Anterior) [Asp-terminative .e. i.. [Mod-necessity [Mod-possibility [Asp-habitual .. Now considering their interaction with again. Asp-repetitive(I) on the line (i) above and Asp-repetitive(II) on the line (ii).' The second reading does not imply . VP-internal subject structure of Koopman & Sportiche (1991). He also identifies the positions of quickly at the two projections.. Asp-celerative(I) and Asp-celerative(II). Therefore.'the state of John's being at New resumed/restituted. result state) whereas source PPs do not.' and (ii) reading .e.. 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) . b. into the extended VP structures: i. [repetitive reading only] John sent the book to NewYork again. Now let us consider how Goal and Source PPs interact with the adverb again.e. Further......... (i) [Asp-repetitive(I) [Asp-frequentative(I). among others. [repetitive reading only] 'the event restitutive York is that John Again in (46a) gives two readings: (i) repetitive reading of John's driving to New York is repeated. Their syntactic behavior we discussed in section 2 suggests that Goal PPs should be syntactically much closer to the verb than Source PPs. [Asp-perfect(?) [Asp-retrospective [Asp-proximative [Asp-durative [Asp-generic/progressive . and Hale and Keyser's (1993) division of L-syntax and S-syntax. we claim that Goal PPs constitute a core event (i. VP-shell structure of Larson (1988). [ambiguous] John drove from New York again. (47) a.17 - . again does not allow restitutive (narrow scope) reading with a Source PP. [Asp-SgCompletive [Asp-PlCompletive [Voice (ii) [Asp-celerative(II) [Asp-repetitive(II) [Asp-frequentative(II) Cinque places the adverb again under two projections i. [ambiguous] John sent the book from NewYork again. (46) a..e.

so they. When a Goal PP combines with the verb. b. it changes the aspectual character of the verb.drove to New York previously. Thus. He ran from the library (for ten minutes/*in ten minutes).18 - . which does not normally go with a time-frame adverbial like in ten minutes. but the unquantized (bare plural or mass) NPs like houses in (49b) and beer in (50b) compose an atelic . and does not give a restitutive reading. (48b) is fine with a time-frame adverbial but it is bad with a durative adverbial for ten minutes. Tenny (1994). Unlike Goal PPs. since the sentence lacks an expression that may denote a result state. which Tenny (2000) labels higher/viewpoint aspect and middle/situation aspect. only gives a repetitive reading. so the sentence denotes a telic event of accomplishment. so (48c) behaves in the same way as (48a) does. (48a) denotes an atelic activity. unlike Goal PPs. Verkuyl (1993). the Source PP from the library does not change the aspectual character of the verb. The same constrast holds for (47a) and (47b). however. (46b) however. 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. This contrast between Goal and Source PP on aspectual shift suggests that the Goal PPs can be treated just like an internal argument which participate in aspectual composition. c. and Krifka (1995) report that an internal argument like (incremental) theme determines the aspectual character of the VP. 3. Mary ran to the store (in ten minutes/*for ten minutes).3 Aspectual Division Cinque (1999) and Travis (2000) identify (at least) two aspectual domains in syntax. do not shift the aspectual character (situation aspect) of the inner event denoted by the lower VP. 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. (48) a. Mary ran (for ten minutes/*in ten minutes). We argue that Source-type PPs scope over the whole situation aspect.

We have been promised from the top in Moscow that we will receive. b. Harry died from AIDS complications. a'. Mary built houses for a year. We will implement the asymmetry in the extended VP structure and event structure proposed shortly in section 4. (50) a. b'. [agent] b. Asp-head separates the lower and the higher VPs. No damage was caused from the shooting.. a'. Let us assume that. ??Mary built a house for a year.19 - . In (51a) Harry's state of being under AIDS complications caused his death.4 Non-locative Source PPs Source PPs headed by from in English often give a non-locative readings. we propose that Goal PPs are generated under the AspP. Mary built a house in a year. We have reports of death from AID complication. Then. (53) a. [cause] b. (52) a. and in (52a) the shooting event caused no damage.. ??The men drank the whole tank of beer for a couple of hours. in a fine-grained VP internal structure. [cause] b. 3. challenge/support/donation/testimony/help/approval/threat from the company The Source PPs in (51) and (52) both denote a state or an event which caused a result state. We also find in (51b) and (52b) the same . (51) a. *The men drank beer in a couple of hours. *Mary built houses in a year. The men drank beer for a couple of hours. b'. thus the from-PPs below refer to Cause in (51-52) and Agent in (53).event. b. (49) a. while Source PPs are generated in a position higher than the AspP. Preliminary estimates indicate damage from the freeze totals $385 million. The men drank the whole tank of beer in a couple of hours.

2.20 - . A complex event contains at least two conjoined sub-events: One is normally a Process which denotes a causing sub-event. we represent their semantic scope in event structure. (ii) The five horses were brought *(from New Delhi). (ii) John walked the baby. We will see that these non-locative readings of Source PPs can be properly represented in the event structures proposed in 4. If an Agent argument shows up in a complex event denoted by a transitive verb. or the caused sub-event may be a process. 1995) event structure. extending Pustejovsky's (1991. (53a) shows that a Source PP can denote an Agent of passive sentences. .3 when we represent the event structure of (i) below. Further. and non-directional PPs are generated. and propose three base positions where Goal PPs.semantic relation between a predicative noun (reports or damage) and a Source PP. Grimshaw & Vikner (1993:143) claim that obligatory adjuncts in passive identify causing sub-event of the whole sentence as shown in (iii). Proposal: Base Positions of Locative PPs and their Semantic Scope Here we adopt the extended VP structure of Hale and Keyser (1993). The causing sub-event may be a state. The former case will show up in 4. and the other is a State which denotes a result state. Thus the sentences take these PPs as composing a causing sub-event of their event structures. Instead the Agent role is essential in its causing sub-event. 7 A typical complex event of causation contains a causing process and a caused (result) state.7 6 Source phrases may be used as an obligatory adjunct in the passives (i-ii) below. (iii) This house is built/designed/constructed *(by a French architect/yesterday/in ten days). it does not paly a role in its result state. and some causative verbs like walk and jump give a complex event structure with a result process. (i) Harry died from AIDS complications. and such Agent reading can be obtained in nominal constructions in (53b). Further.6 4. Source PPs. (i) The homemade stove was built *(from the rims of coal truck tires). but this is not a structural constraint on complex event structures.

Notice that the Goal PP is then treated exactly like a resultative . (55) [VP1 DP1 [V1' V1 [VP2 [V2' (DP2) V2 PPG]]]] As we have seen in section 3. Thus. A Goal PP generated under the lower VP specifies the final location of Theme argument.' and the event structure of (54b) should entail 'the hay was on the truck. (54a) entails the result state (E2) 'John was at the boat. where a Goal PP combines with V2 to form V2' as shown in (55). Marta loaded the hay onto the truck. Goal PPs are interpreted as composing a result state.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. E0:Transition / \ E1:Process E2:State | | [john SWIM] [john BE-AT the-boat] We take the event structure (56) as a semantic structure which can be mapped to its syntactic VP structure of (55). John swam to the boat. (54) a.21 - . b. which shows up as a direct object of a transitive verb or as a subject of an intransitive verb. Thus.4. we represent the event structure of (54a) as (56) below. V2' may contain an internal argument (Theme).' (56) John swam to the boat. but the Goal PP extends the simplex event (E1) to a complex one with a result state (E2). we characterize the mapping as follows: (57) Mapping-1: PPs constituting a result state are generated in the lower VP. The lexical verb swim does not denote a complex event by itself. Then the result state will be composed of the Theme and the Goal.

and they are generated under the lower VP.2. which evidently forms a result state in the following sentences. The potter baked the clay hard. 8 Again. (59) a. again modifies a result state to give a restitutive reading. She cooked the food brown. 4. the Source PPs do not compose the result state. (58) a. each of the resultative phrases in (58) denotes a predicate of a result state. so it is represented as a modifier of the causing event in (61) below.8 (62) states the mapping relation between the semantic structure of (61) and the syntactic configuration of (60). . 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. The Source PP in (59a) indicates the initial point of John's movement. John swam to the boat from the beach. c. then due to (57) Mapping-1 the adverb is also generated under the lower VP.22 - . The dog barked the neighbors awake.phrase.2. b. b. Marta sent the book from Chicago. (61) John swam to the boat from the beach. (60) [VP1 DP1 PPS [V1' V1 [VP2 [V2' (DP2) V2 ]]]] As we have seen in 3. so they scope over V1' containing the lower VP2 as shown in (60). That is. and (59b) implies the book's change of location. As we discussed in 3. so do not affect the aspectual character of the verb. the meaning of the verb determines what entity is located by the source PP: (59a) implies John's change of location.

The boy clumsily spilled the beans over the floor. just like Source PPs. and manner adverbials like clumsily in (63c). Some verbs of removing like empty. but an NP like death .23 - . b. He wiped crumbs off the table.e. i. but has an internal cause. Die lexically denotes an achievement event. (65) does not express an external cause like 'killing' process..9 The event structure of (65) is 9 (65) does not involve an active Agent role in the event. subject-oriented adverbials like reluctantly in (63a). As we have seen in 3. remove. temporal (frame) adverbials like in an hour in (63b). Harry's state of being under AIDS complications. For instance. The man reluctantly sold the car to me. (63) a. so we noted in 3. John painted a picture in an hour.4 that the PP from AIDS complications in (65) repeated below denotes the cause of Harry's death. Source PPs may have a non-locative reading. b. killing action) and an Agent.. (64) a. clear and wipe take a Source PP as a core argument as in (64). which may involve an external cause (i. They emptied water from the tank.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. Harry's state of being under AIDS complications caused his death. there are other adverbials that modify the causing sub-event (Process). We claim that the adverbials.e. are also generated under the higher VP. c. Then the PP should be generated in the lower V2' just like Goal PPs. That is.

where the Source PP composes the causing sub-event.10 We claim that the non-directional PPs (PPND) are generated as a VP1-adjunct as shown in (68).24 - .e. E1:Sate = [harry BE-UNDER AIDS complications].b) below contain a non-directional PP. thus (69) represents the event structure of (67a).. This adnominal reading of the PP is not of our concern here. . John swam to the boat in the lake. (65) (66) Harry died from AIDS complications. (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 Source PP. ]]]] Non-directional PPs denote the location of the whole event that VP1 denotes.represented as (66) below.3. Marta met Mary at the meeting. but Maienborn (2001) analyses this use of locative PPs as one of the three types of locative modifiers in German. (67) a. Non-directional PPs: External Locatives (67a. b. (68) [VP1 PPND [VP1 DP1 [V1' V1 [VP2 . [cause] E0:Transition / \ E1:State E2:State | | [harry BE-UNDER AIDS compl] [harry BE dead] 4... 10 (67a) has another reading where in the lake modifies the boat within the same DP. The PP in the lake in (67a) locates the event of John's swimming to the boat. and at the meeting locates the event of Marta's meeting with Mary. i.

2. [again in restitutive reading] E0:Transition / \ E1:Process E2:State | / \ [john DRIVE-ACT] MOD E2:State | | [again] [john BE-AT New York] b. John drove to New York again. When they modify the whole event.(69) implies that 'John was in the lake' and 'the boat was in the lake. Thus (73a) and (74a) are ambiguous: they .25 - . Thus we can represent the ambiguity of again as in the following: (71) a. [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 hardly give a directional reading. In 3. Thus the adverbs in (71) repeated below can modify either a sub-event (result state or process) or the whole event. John drove to New York again. John drove to New York again. b. we noted that again and quickly may be ambiguous with respect to their semantic scope. Now we have the following mapping rule for the non-directional locatives: (70) Mapping-3: PPs modifying the whole event are generated adjoined to the higher VP.' since the PP in the lake locates the whole event of the sentence. the PPs should be generated adjoined to the higher VP due to (70). The police quickly arrested John. (72) a.

since they are independent of the event structure proposed here. John slipped in the bathtub. We are not dealing with these adverbials. Movement (2. Hopefully/Certainly. Eva still is very popular. We distinguished three syntactic base positions for locatives. b. But (73b) and (74b) lack a directional reading. intensional. 5. (73) a. 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 do.2). As illustrated in (75). the sentence initial position also hosts a sentence-level or a discourse-level adverbial (such as perspectival. The semantics of . (74) a. 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. In Italy. c. Lothar bought his suits in France. (75) a. (ii) source locative PPs are generated under the higher VP and modify a process sub-event. We illustrated their contrast in terms of Preposition Incorporation (2. speech act oriented. Pseudo-passives (2. In Argentina. and (iii) non-directional locative PPs are generated adjoined to the higher VP and scope over the whole event. 1995). Concluding Remarks Based on the extended VP-structure of Hale and Keyser (1993) and the event structure of Pustejovsky (1991.5).26 - .4). so the PPs do not carry a goal directional reading. b. John jogged across the street. or frame-setting adverbials). Across the street John jogged.have both a directional and a non-directional reading. the war will end soon. In the bathtub John slipped. b. and Locative Alternation (2.3). (75a. we proposed a more explicit mapping between syntax and semantics of directional PPs particularly Goal and Source PPs.b) are from Maienborn (2001).

Keyser (eds.g. and Other Things: Issues in the Semantics of Manner Adverbs. J. Keyser (1993) 'On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.) The Logic of Decision and Action. In order to support the proposed account. Grimshaw. G. J. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. through the tunnel and over the bridge). (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Baker. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. (1967) 'The Logical Form of Action Sentences. 77-122.2). But these PPs should be included in further research on locative modification. Cambridge. Events. Reprinted in D. GLSA. and rudely) (3. Reidel.3). Pittsburg. Clarendon Press.' in Tara Mohanan and Lionel Wee (eds. We have neither dealt with intensional locative PPs (e. Eckardt. D. Pustejovsky and C. M. and speech act oriented locatives) nor with Path-type PPs (e.27 - . Hale. CSLI.) Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure: 143-55.) The . Amherst. and further by the clear contrast in their contribution to aspectual interpretation (3. Max Niemeyer. J. Tuebingen. E. Dordrecht.. Davidson. University of Pittsburg Press. we need further explore their syntactic and semantic characteristics in relation to wider range of PPs and adverbials. MIT Press. Cinque.) Grammatical Semantics Evidence for Structure in Meaning. T. References Alsina. Tenny (eds. and S.' in NELS 28.' in K. Hale and S. J. Chicago University Press. Alex (1999) 'On the Representation of Event Structure. R. (1990) Argument Structure.' in N. Kluwer Publishers. Vikner.g. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Ernst. & S. Abraham (eds. (1998) Adverbs. K.. MA. Grimshaw. Rescher (ed.) (2000): 335-358. quickly. Tuebingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Couper-Kuhlen. Oxford. D. frame-setting.Source and Goal locatives is characterized largely in terms of scope: That is. (1993) 'Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events. Stanford. their scope properties in event structures are supported by the ambiguous readings of various adverbs (like again. Davidson (1980) Essay on Actions and Events. Reuland and W. (1998) 'Scope Based Adjunct Licensing. T. perspectival. Dowty. (2000) 'Manners and Events' in J. Ernst. (1979) The Prepositional Passive in English.' in E. pp.

R. Buitelaar (eds. MA. MIT Press. Manfred (1992) 'Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution. Koopman. T. A. Cambridge. Pustejovsky. Parsons. Darden. Krifka. Berkeley. (1995) The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press. Cambridge. California. Davidson (eds.) Lexical Semantics in Context. J. & D. Circumpositions and Particles: The Structure of Dutch PPs' ms.View from Building 20. Number 19 in Current Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge. University of California Press. Lee. Bos and P.' in B. M. J. Stanford. Szabolcsi (eds. MIT Press. MA. CSLI Publications. (2000) 'The Leaky Grammar of the Chickasaw Applicatives. J. Jackendoff. CSLI Publications. H. MA. MA.' Natural Language Semantics 9: 191-240. Germany.' in Arika Okrent and John P. N. and B. and A. UCLA.) Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 71-80. and C. Hale. (1988) 'On the Double Object Construction. K. C. (1968) 'Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure.' in I. J.) Lexical Matters. C.' Lingua 85: 211-258. S. Pustejovsky. U. and A. Chicago Linguistic Society. (2002) 'On the Semantics of Locatives' Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 157-232. MIT Press.' Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-392. Postpositions. Weinberg (1981) 'Case Theory and Preposition Stranding' Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55-92. Cambridge. Kang (1998) 'Lexical Semantic Structure for Predicates in Korean. (1980) A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. (1990) Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Chicago. Koopman. Cambridge. Hornstein. Kracht. Sag and A. (1990) Semantic Structures. McCawley.) The Proceedings from the Main Session of the Chicago Linguistic Society's Thirty-sixth Meeting.' Cognition 41: 47-81. University of Chicago. Larson. Language and Information. of Saarbruecken. Munro. P. R. California.. J. Nam. Kimenyi. C. Keyser (1993) Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure.28 - .) (2000) Events as Grammatical Objects. (1997) 'Prepositions.N. Doctoral dissertation. Volume 36-1: 285-310. Bailey. MIT Press. (1991) 'The Syntax of Event Structure. Cambridge. Stanford. (2001) 'On the Position and Interpretation of Locative Modifiers. European Summer School in Logic. Tenny (eds. Boyle (eds. UCLA. Maienborn. and S.' in J. Sportiche (1991) 'The Position of Subjects. MA. . MA. MIT Press. Nam. (1995) Semantics of Locative Prepositional Phrases in English. Jackendoff. R. S. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 39. H. (1983) Semantics and Cognition. Pustejovsky.

Travis. (1993) A Theory of Aspectuality. 151-742. E. Pustejovsky and C. Pustejovsky & C. Pustejovsky & C. Dordrecht. Vendler. Z. Smith.) (2000): 285-334. Tenny ( . Rosen (2000) 'Event Structure and Ergativity. Cornell University Press. Kluwer Academic Press. Verkuyl. KOREA E-mail: nam@snu. C.) (2000): 187-238. Ithaca. H. New York. Kwanak-ku. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. C. Dordrecht. Tenny (eds. (1991) Parameter of Aspect.snu.' in J. Tenny. (1994) Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.Ritter. Cambridge University Press. Tenny. (2000) 'Core Events and Adverbial Modification. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Department of Linguistics.29 - .kr webpage: http://cl. Seoul. Seoul National University Sillim-dong San (2000): 145-185. C. Tenny (eds. & S.' in J. (2000) 'Event Structure in Syntax' in J.