C a u s e d – m o t I o n c o n s t r u c t I o n

The Caused-Motion Construction is defined structurally as

Subject - Predicate (nonstative verb) - Object - Obl (directional phrase).

The semantics of the construction is argued to involve the causer that directly causes the theme to move along a path designated by the directional phrase:

Subject (Cause) - Predicate (Cause-Move) - Object (Theme) - Obl (Goal), e.g.: They laughed the poor guy out of the room. They sprayed the paint onto the wall.

The construction is associated with a category of related senses:

1. X causes Y to move Z:

Frank pushed it into the box.

2. X causes Y to move Z (verbs encode a communicative act):

Sam asked (ordered, invited, urged) him into the room.

3. X enables Y to move Z (verbs encode the removal of the barrier):

Sam let (allowed, freed, released) him into the room.

D. X prevents Y from moving Z (is understood as imposition of the barrier, causing the patient to stay in a location despite its inherent tendency to move):

Harry locked Joe into the bathroom. He kept her at arm’s length.

4. X helps Y to move Z (involves ongoing assistance to move in a certain direction):

Sam helped (assisted, guided, showed) him into the living room.

The central sense of the construction is A sense. It involves manipulative causation and actual movement, which has been suggested as the most basic causative situation.

Semantic constraints are proposed to explain idiosyncrasy in pairs with relative verbs, e.g.: Pat coaxed him into the room. – sounds correct, while Pat encouraged him into the room. – does not.

Constraint on the Causer: the causer argument can be an agent or a natural force, e.g.: Chris pushed the piano up the stairs.

The wind blew the ship off the course.

Constraints on Direct Causation (constraints on what kind of situations (causations) can be encoded by the Caused-Motion Construction):

1. No Mediating Cognitive Decision: no cognitive decision can mediate between the causing event and the entailed motion, e.g.: Sam frightened (coaxed, lured) Bob out of the room.

II. The Implication of Actual Motion: if motion is not

strictly entailed, it must be presumed as an implication (implication

can be determined pragmatically), e.g.: Sam asked (invited,

urged)him into the room. Sam allowed (permitted) him into the

house.

III. Conventionalized Causations – causations which involve an

intermediate cause, i.e. are indirect, but cognitively packaged as a

single event, i.e. their internal structure is ignored, e.g.: The

invalid owner ran his favorite horse (in the race). The company

flew her to Chicago for an interview.

4. Incidental Motion Causations: incidental motion must be effected as a result of the activity causing the change of state which is performed in a conventional way or with the intention of causing the motion. It means that the path of motion may be specified and the causation may be encoded by the Caused-Motion Construction, e.g.: The butcher sliced the salami onto the wax paper. Sam shredded the papers into the garbage pail. The action performed by the agent typically implies some predictable incidental motion.

5. Path of Motion: the path of motion must be completely determined by the causal force. The causing event must determine the entire path of motion, even though actual physical contact is not maintained over the entire path. Which paths count as “completely determined” is in part a matter of pragmatics. If the action is interpreted to be the driving force determining the particular path of motion, the motion can be said as “completely determined” by the action, e.g.: He shoved the cart down the incline. They laughed the poor guy into his car.

The semantic constraints have been proposed in an attempt to show principled patterns where there seems to be idiosyncrasy. These constraints have been argued to involve a combination of lexical semantics and general world knowledge.

R e s u l t a t i v e C o n s t r u c t i o n

The Resultative Construction is argued to be a metaphorical extension of the caused-motion construction. The semantics of the construction involves the patient, that is why resultatives can only be applied to arguments which potentially undergo a change of state as a result of the action denoted by the verb. Resultatives can apply to:

• direct objects of some transitive verbs, e.g.: I had brushed my hair smooth. You killed it stone-dead.;

• subjects of particular intransitive verbs, e.g.: The river froze solid.;

• “fake” objects, i.e. post-verbal arguments that do not bear the normal argument

relation to the verb, e.g.: She laughed herself crooked.

Thus, resultative construction can be defined as

Subject (Agent) – Predicate (Cause-Become) – Object (Patient) – Obl-adjective or prepositional phrase (Result-Goal) for transitive resultatives, and

Subject (Patient) – Predicate (Become) – Obl (Result-Goal) for intransitive resultatives.

Semantic constraints are proposed to explain extensions.

(Animate) Instigator Constraint: subject in the 2-argument resultative construction must hold the role of an (animate) instigator and it is not necessarily an agent, since no volitionality is required, e.g.: She coughed herself sick. Inanimate instigators are also possible, e.g.: The alarm clock ticked the baby awake. Instrument subjects are not possible, e.g.: * The hammer pounded the metal flat.

Aspectual Constraint: the change of state must occur simultaneously with the endpoint of the action denoted by the verb. This constraint rules out cases in which there is any time delay between the action denoted by the verb and the subsequent change of state, e.g.: He ate himself sick. (implies that the agent’s continuous eating made him sick).

End-of-Scale Constraint: the endpoint must be clearly delimited. It may be on some absolute scale (in this case nongradable adjectives are used) or on a scale of functionality, in which case continued functioning is impossible beyond it. Most of the adjectives which can occur in the construction are nongradable. If gradable adjectives are used they receive a nongradable interpretation, e.g.: He talked himself hoarse. (implies that the patient argument has “gone over edge” beyond the point where normal functioning is possible). The type of adjectives that occur as a resultative is fairly limited. The adjectives which occur regularly are: asleep/awake, open/shut, flat/straight/smooth, free, full/empty, dead/alive, sick, hoarse, sober, crazy.

The resultatives cannot be adjectives derived from either present or past participles, e.g.: * She kicked the door opening. * She kicked the door opened. The restriction has been attributed to a semantic clash of aspect.

“W a y” C o n s t r u c t i o n

The “Way” Construction is generally used to render literal or metaphorical motion, e.g.: Frank dug his way out of the prison. The players will maul their way up the middle of the field. Their customers snorted and injected their way to oblivion. Lord King … joked and blustered his way out of trouble at the meeting. The verbs cannot be used with other than “way” valences: * Chris mauled / bludgeoned into the room. The same is not true of verbs which clearly do lexically code literal or metaphorical motion, e.g.: to inch and to worm – Lucky may have inched ahead of Black Stallion. He can’t worm out of that station.

The “Way” Construction admits two interpretations: means interpretation as a basic one and manner interpretation as extension (means interpretation diachronically preceded the manner interpretation by several centuries).

The Means Interpretation: Creation of a Path

This interpretation means that the path through which motion takes place is not preestablished, but rather is created by some action of the subject referent. In other words the motion must be through a literal or metaphorical self-created path, e.g.: Sally made way into the room. – implies that Sally moved through a crowd or other obstacles.

The most common interpretation involves motion through a crowd, mass, obstacle, e.g.: He pushed his way past the others. Troops have been shooting their way through angry, unarmed mobs. Another interpretation (a metaphorical case) involves situations in which a path may need to be created, if there are social obstacles standing in the way, e.g.: Joe bought his way into the exclusive country club.

The semantics of the construction involves both the creation of a path and movement along that path and can be defined as Subject (Creator-Theme) – Predicate (Create-Move) – Object way (Createe-Way) – Obl (Path). The means interpretation of the construction always entails that the subject referent moves despite external difficulty or in some indirect way. Thus, “way” is a meaningful element, designating the path of motion.

The Manner Interpretation

This interpretation does not imply external difficulties, there is no necessary implication that a path must be created. The subject referent moves along a pre-established path, e.g.: They were clanging their way up and down the narrow streets.

He was scowling his way along the fiction shelves in a pursuit of a book. The “way” phrase is not represented in the semantics of the construction, but is syntactically encoded into the form of the direct object complement.

Semantic constraints

Unbounded Activity ( for both interpretations): the verb necessarily designates a repeated action or unbounded activity, e.g.: Firing wildly, Jones shot his way through the crowd. He hiccupped his way out of the room.

Self-Propelled Motion (for the means interpretation): motion must be self-propelled. The constraint rules out unaccusative verbs, as unaccusativity correlates with lack of agentivity or lack of self-initiation, e.g.: The bank-debt restructuring is the centerpiece of Lomas Financial’s month-long efforts to shrink its way back to profitability after 2 years of heavy losses. But * The wood burns its way to the ground.

Directed Motion (mostly for the means interpretation): the motion must be directed – it cannot be aimless, e.g.: She shoved her way through the crowd.

The Way Construction is available for use with a wide variety of verbs (compare “resultatives” and “fake object resultatives” which are highly restrictive). The Way Construction is directly associated with a certain semantics independently of the lexical items which instantiate it.