ADJECTIVE SELECTION IN RESULTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Cristiano Broccias

0. INTRODUCTION The apparently rampant idiosyncrasy in the use of adjectives in resultative constructions (e.g. John hammered the metal flat vs. *John hammered the metal long, see sections 1 and 2) has often led researchers to despair of finding constraints (or generalizations) capturing their occurrence. Quite recently, however, Wechsler (2001) has developed a formal model which predicts many cases of adjective selection, as will be shown in section 3. In this paper, however, I will show that Wechslers analysis, although basically on the right track, is untenable if taken as a formal system (see section 4). In its place, I will propose that adjective selection can be captured by taking into account, among many other factors, the distinction between gestalt and part-whole properties (see section 5). 1. RESULTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS Resultative constructions are sentences such as (1): (1) John hammered the metal flat. The adjective flat in (1) describes the state achieved by the metal as a result of the action of hammering performed by the subject referent (i.e. John). Hence, flat is referred to as a resultative (adjective) phrase and the construction in which it appears as a resultative construction (see Levin 1993: 101). In other words, (1) codes two subevents: the subevent of Johns hammering the metal and the subevent of the metals becoming flat. Such two subevents are related causally: the former subevent causes the latter subevent (i.e. the change of state event). The situation is informally represented in (2), where the thick arrow visualises the causal relation:

(2)

SUBEVENT1:

John hammered the metal

SUBEVENT2: the metal became flat It must be pointed out that the constructional object need not be a possible object of the verb when this is used in isolation, that is independently of the resultative construction. Let us consider the data in (3): (3) a. Sally wiped the table clean. a. b. b. Sally wiped the table. Sally laughed herself silly. *Sally laughed herself.

The constructional object the table in (3a) is also a possible object of the verb wipe when this verb is used in isolation, i.e. independently of a resultative construction, compare (3a) with (3a). In keeping with current linguistic usage (see Haegeman 1994), I refer to this type of object as a subcategorised object, which means that it is selected by the constructional verb. The constructional object herself in (3b), on the other hand, is not a possible object of the verb laugh when such a verb is used in isolation, as is shown in (3b). Herself in (3b) is therefore called unsubcategorised object since it is not selected (or subcategorised) by the constructional verb. Finally, since both the table and herself refer to entities that underwent some change, these can be described through the semantic roles of patient or theme1. The latter term reflects the intuition that the affected entity in the resultative construction (i.e. the object in (3a) and (3b)) can be viewed metaphorically as traversing a path, whose endpoint is signalled by the adjective (see Broccias 2003 for more details). 2. IDIOSYNCRASY Corpus-driven analyses of resultative adjectives (i.e. adjectives occurring in resultative constructions), such as the one carried out by Boas (2000) using the British National Corpus (BNC), show that a very restricted range of adjectives is used. Table 1 reproduces the resultative adjectives found in the BNC by Boas (2000)2:
1

The labels for thematic roles are usually capitalised. I will not follow such a convention in this paper.
2

It must be pointed out that the resultative adjectives found by Boas (2000) are not necessarily all the ones occurring in the BNC. The reader is referred to his work for details on

We observe that the first five adjectives alone (i.e. dead, apart, open, shut, clean) account for 82% of all adjectival occurrences and that, phonologically, the adjectives in Table 1 are either mono- or bi-syllabic. The only exception is unconscious, which is however formed from the bi-syllabic adjective conscious by adding the negative prefix un-. Finally, only one adjective, crooked, is deverbal. Not only does the range of adjectives found in resultative constructions seem to be very limited statistically, but native speakers judgements reveal that potentially plausible adjectives do not actually occur in resultative constructions (at least if uttered out of the blue). Consider the following minimal pairs: (4) a. John hammered the metal flat. (= (1)) b. (5) a. b. *John hammered the metal {long/triangular}. John laughed himself to death. *John laughed himself dead.

Table 1 Resultative adjectives found in the BNC (from Wechsler 2001, based on Boas 2000)
adjective dead apart open shut clean dry awake full flat unconscious black silly occurences 431 407 395 207 102 77 41 35 34 30 25 20 adjective thin sick red stupid hoarse smooth empty crooked deaf sober soft sore occurences 15 13 11 10 9 5 4 2 2 1 1 1

Although a scenario in which John hammered the metal thus causing it to become long or triangular can easily be activated on the part of the conceptualiser, (4b) is judged ungrammatical. (5) shows that in some cases a

the methodology employed.

morphologically related noun (used as a prepositional complement) is preferred to the adjective. On the basis of evidence similar to that provided in (4) and (5), researchers have concluded that adjectival selection in resultative constructions is highly idiosyncratic (see Verspoor 1997 among others). Only recently has Wechsler (2001) developed a model which can (partially) capture adjectival distribution in resultative constructions. In what follows, I will detail Wechslers models predictions and show that they are not always borne out by actually occurring examples. Further, Wechslers model has little to say about unsubcategorised object cases (see (3b) above), which, I will contend, are sensitive to the same generalisations as subcategorised object examples. 3. WECHSLERS (2001) MODEL In this section I will illustrate the predictions made by Wechslers (2001) formal model but will not discuss its theoretical underpinnings because this goes well beyond the scope of the present paper (the interested reader is referred to Wechslers own paper and Broccias 2003 for detailed discussion). Still, it is crucial to point out that Wechslers analysis is based on the observation that resultative constructions are always telic or, to put it differently, they always involve a telic path. The sentence in (6) (6) *John hammered the metal flat for an hour. is impossible because the temporal adjunct for an hour imposes a repetitive (i.e. atelic) construal for the event coded by the resultative construction (i.e. the metals becoming flat). But such an event, under ordinary circumstances, cannot take place more than once. Wechslers model predicts two ways in which the verbal (or causing) event can interact with the telic path (which is expressed by the resultative phrase): Case 1. If the theme argument is subcategorised (e.g. the theme is an object of the verb in isolation)3, then homomorphism and coextension between the event

The theme argument can also be shared when it is the subject of an intransitive verb (as in The river froze solid). This case is not discussed in the present paper, which only focuses on transitive resultative constructions. Nevertheless, the conclusions arrived at here also apply to intransitive examples (see Broccias 2003 for discussion).

and the path is required (i.e. the verbal, or causing, event, SUBEVENT1, and the change event, SUBEVENT2, unfold together). Case 2. If the theme argument is not subcategorised, then homomorphism and coextension between the event and the path is not required (i.e. the verbal, or causing, event and the change event need not unfold together). Homomorphism means that parts of the verbal event must correspond to parts of the path and vice versa. For example, in (3a) above, Sally wiped the table clean, parts of the event of wiping correspond to parts of the event of the tables becoming clean, i.e. the path metonymically signalled by the adjective clean (which denotes its final point). The term coextension in the definitions above makes it clear that the verbal event must begin when the affected theme is at the start of the change path and end when the affected theme reaches the end of the change path. In other words, homomorphism between the telic event and the path obtains at the same arbitrary point in time along a(n initially and finally) bounded time arrow. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to homomorphism and coextension simply as homomorphism. I will now turn to a detailed discussion of Case 1 and Case 2 examples.
3.1. Case 1: Subcategorised arguments Case 1 involves sentences such as (1), John hammered the metal flat, and (3a), Sally wiped the table clean, where the constructional object is also a possible object for the verb used in isolation. We can distinguish three types of Case 1 sentences according to the temporal profile of the verbal event (i.e. durative vs. punctual event) and the lexical category of the head in the resultative phrase (i.e. adjective vs. preposition). The first type, Type I, is illustrated in (7) below; it combines a durative verbal event with an adjective phrase.

(7)

a. b.

Sally wiped the table clean. (= (3a)) *The rabbits had apparently been battered dead.

Since wipe in (7a) is a durative verb, for homomorphism to obtain between the verbal event and the path hinted at by the resultative adjective (i.e. the path ending up in the clean state), a suitable, i.e. durative, adjective must be selected. In more detail, Wechsler contends that the adjective in question must be gradable (cf. cleaner) and closed-scale (cf. completely clean). Informally, the former requirement correlates with path extension for the change event hinted
5

at by the adjective, whereas the latter correlates with boundedness of the change event. A schematic visual representation for (7a) is offered in Figure 1, which will also be appropriate for Type III below. Figure 1 Schematic representation of Wechslers (2001) Type I and Type III resultative constructions
durative verb

gradable adj. / PP

homomorphism

The horizontal lines in Figure 1 stand for temporal (or path) extension and the vertical lines at either end of the lines indicate that both the verbal event (the upper horizontal line) and the resultative path (the bottom line) are bounded. The dashed vertical line connecting the two horizontal lines, as well as the fact that the latter have been represented one exactly under the other and as having the same length, visualises homomorphism. Going back to (7), we are now in a position to explain the unacceptability of (7b),*The rabbits had apparently been battered dead. The verb denotes a durative event, but the adjective does not. Dead is a non-gradable adjective (cf. *more dead). In other words, the path coded by dead has no extension and would correspond to a point (rather than a segment) in a diagrammatic representation along the lines of Figure 1 (see Figure 2 below). Type II involves cases where the verbal event is punctual and the resultative phrase is an adjective phrase. For homomorphism between the verbal event and the resultative event to obtain, the adjective must be punctual as well, that is non-gradable, as is illustrated in (8) below: (8) Pat shot the miller dead. A schematic visual representation of Type II sentences is given in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Schematic representation of Wechslers (2001) Type II resultative constructions

punctual verb

punctual adj.

The punctual nature of both verb and adjective has been depicted in Figure 2 through a cross. The dashed vertical line, as in Figure 1, indicates homomorphism. Type III concerns those cases where the resultative state is encoded in a prepositional phrase (PP). According to Wechsler (2001), since prepositional phrases always code durative events, the verbal event must also be interpreted as such. This explains why the verb shoot, which occurred with a punctual interpretation in (8) above, has a durative reading in (9a) in similar fashion to the by-default durative verb batter in (9b). (9) a. Pat shot the miller to death. b. Pat battered the rabbit to death.

Wechsler (2001) claims that his model explains the unacceptability of the examples in (10). (10) a. *He hammered the metal safe. (no homomorphism) b. c d. e. f. *He hammered the metal beautiful. (no homomorphism) *He hammered the metal tubular. (cf. ??very tubular) *He hammered the metal triangular. (cf. ??very triangular) *He hammered the metal wide. (cf. ??extremely wide) *He hammered the metal long. (cf. ??extremely long)

Such problematic examples involve either lack of homomorphism, see (10a) and (10b), or an unsuitable adjective (i.e. a non-gradable or non-closed scale adjective, as indicated for (10c)-(10f) by the deviant expressions in brackets). We can already note at this juncture that Wechslers claim concerning the lack of homomorphism for (10a) at least is intuitively dubious. To be sure, the hammering event is coextensive with the metals ending up in a safe position.
3.2. Case 2: Unsubcategorised arguments Case 2 concerns those cases where the constructional object is not a possible object for the verb used in isolation, that is the constructional object is an unsubcategorised object. Sentences such as

(11)

a. b.

Sally laughed herself silly. (= (3b)) Sally danced her legs stiff.

do not imply homomorphism. For example, the physical sensation referred to by the adjective stiff in (11b) and predicated of Sallys legs may have been felt by her as she woke up the morning after the dancing event took place. Since no requirements concerning homomorphism in unsubcategorised object resultatives are in force, any adjective is potentially a suitable one. The situation has been schematised in Figure 3. The fact that the two bounded horizontal lines have not been drawn one directly under the other indicates the optional character of homomorphism in Case 2 examples. Figure 3 Schematic representation unsubcategorised resultative constructions of Wechslers (2001)

any verb

homomorphism not required any adjective

4. SOME PROBLEMS FOR WECHSLERS (2001) APPROACH However appealing Wechslers (2001) model might look, it can be shown that it runs into several problems when confronted with a large number of data (which I have mainly collected from novels and the Internet using the searchengine Google).
4.1. Impossible classification Some examples violate Wechslers classification. Consider the sentences in (12):

(12)

a. b. c.

They battered him senseless. Sam cut the bread thin. He folded this note up very small(J.K. Rowling, 2000, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, p. 38)

They should all belong to Type I because they contain adjectives and verbs which are durative (or interpreted as such). (12a) contains the durative verb batter (see (7b) and (9b)), but a non-gradable scale adjective is used (cf. *very senseless). The event denoted by cut in (12b) is to be interpreted iteratively (hence duratively) but the adjective thin is a non-closed scale one (cf. *completely thin). Finally, (12c) cannot be regarded as a Type I resultative construction either. Fold clearly denotes a non-punctual action (hence, Type II classification is excluded) but small, although gradable, is not a closed scale adjective (cf. *completely small). Further, (12c) cannot be taken as a Type III construction since very small can hardly be viewed as the complement of up (and, in any case, up is optional).
4.2. Context-dependency Wechsler (2001) disregards the fact that resultative constructions, more often than not, encode conventionalised (i.e. entrenched) scenarios (see Boas 2000 and Verspoor 1997). For example, Wechsler claims that (13a) below

(13)

a. b. c.

He wiped it {clean/*wet}. I sprinkled them wet with the garden hose. *He wiped it to {cleanness/wetness}. (cf. He rubbed his eyes into wakefulness.)

is impossible with wet because wet is a gradable minimal-endpoint adjective. That is, in the absence of a contextual standard, the standard for wet defaults to a minimum so that wet is a de facto open-scale adjective (see Wechsler 2001: 5 for more details). Hence, it is excluded from Type I constructions. To be sure, wet appears in resultative constructions with durative verbs, see (13b). If we accept Wechslers proposal, we conclude that wet in (13b) must be a gradable closed-scale maximal endpoint adjective. This would mean that the interpretation of wet (as a maximal vs. minimal endpoint adjective) depends on the context as suggested by Wechsler. But why should wet not be a maximal endpoint adjective in (13a) as well? If Wechslers hypothesis is correct, there must be some reason for it. I would like to argue that the exclusion of the adjective wet from (13a) does not stem from its contextual interpretation as a minimal endpoint vs. maximal endpoint adjective. Rather, the notion of expected consequence seems to be the determining factor. When we wipe something, we do so because, overwhelmingly, our intention and/or expected result is that something becomes clean or dry. On the other hand, if we use the verb wipe in conjunction with wet, we are resorting to a more complex operation, namely one where we negate the expected consequence(s) of the action of wiping (viz. cleanness). In some sense, the action of wiping was not effective. If we sprinkle something, see (13b), we expect that entity to become covered with particles of a certain liquid up to the point in which the whole affected entity may be described as wet. Further, one may add the additional problematic fact that both the possible adjective clean and the impossible adjective wet in (13a) cannot be replaced by the prepositional phrases to cleanness and to wetness (see (13c)), an option which should be permitted within Wechslers approach the relevant examples would be of Type III. Not only do entrenched scenarios motivate why the same adjective (e.g. wet) can or cannot appear in a resultative construction, but the very notion of gradability as well as the acceptability of allegedly impossible adjectives within the same resultative structure are context-dependent. The naturally occurring examples in (14a)-(14b) below show that the adjectives triangular and tubular, which are classified as non-gradable by Wechsler and hence regarded as being impossible in resultative constructions (see (10c)-(10d)), do pass the very + Adjective test in an appropriate context. (14c) demonstrates that not all speakers agree on the impossibility of (10a), *He hammered the metal safe, if more context is provided. Hence, we cannot exclude that even the wet variant of (13a) above might be acceptable if a suitable context is supplied.

10

(14)

a. b. c.

A very triangular roof, the gable allows rain and snow to run off easily. (www.cmhpf.org/kids/Guideboox/RoofTypes.html) It [the snake] was very tubular (worm-like). (www.nature.net/forums/load/reptile/msg0721102016026.html) The slide at the park had a section which had come loose. Several children had hurt themselves on the protruding edge. In order to prevent further injuries, John hammered the metal safe. (from Verspoor 1997).

4.3. Additional material Adjacent (but not necessarily preceding) material affects grammaticality as is illustrated in (15). Such examples are usually regarded as being colloquial but less colloquial than (15a) (unless real is substituted for really in (15d)). Still, (15) demonstrates once more that the context of utterance (e.g. formal vs. informal language) should not be ignored.

(15)

a.

He painted it nice. (colloquial)

b. c.
d.

He painted it all nice. He painted it nice and shiny.

He painted it real(ly) nice.

4.4. Animacy vs. transitivity The notion of homomorphism (between the verbal event and the event hinted at by the resultative phrase) does not depend on transitivity, as Wechsler contends, but stems from the notion of animacy. In other words, temporal dependency may be optional in subcategorised object cases (see (16b), (17) and (18)) and virtually obligatory in unsubcategorised object cases (see (19)).

(16)

a. b.

Sally sprayed her skin wet. Sally sprayed her skin soft.

(17)

(18)

Student stabbed to death. [headline] He was treated by a paramedic and taken by helicopter to hospital, but he died soon afterwards. [text] (The Guardian 14.9.1999) The critics panned the comedy out of town. (from Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 2001)
11

(19)

Sally talked her throat dry.

Whereas the natural interpretation of (16a) is that the event of Sallys spraying her skin and that of the skins becoming wet unfold together, this is not necessarily the case in (16b). The skin may have become soft after the event of Sallys spraying it had ended. Such an interpretation relies on our different conceptualisation of the skin in the two examples under consideration. In (16a), the skin is conceptualised as an inanimate surface which was being covered with some liquid substance. Hence, homomorphism is expected. In (16b), on the other hand, some property intrinsic to the skin actively participates in the event of its becoming soft. The skin is not conceptualised as an inanimate surface but as a (possibly three-dimensional) entity whose properties bring about changes in its texture. In this sense, I will say that the skin is animate (although, of course, the skin is not engaged volitionally in the event). Crucially, if some property intrinsic to the skin is involved in the process of its change of state (i.e. its change of state does not only depend on external forces), homomorphism need not obtain. (17) can be analysed along similar lines. Student is a subcategorised argument of the verb stab (and would correspond to the object in the active sentence Someone stabbed a student to death). Still, the text makes it clear that the student died after the event of stabbing took place, when he was in hospital. Processes internal to the students body were of course involved and account for the lack of homomorphism between the event of the students being stabbed and the event of the students dying. In (18), The critics panned the comedy out of town, the fact that the comedy was moved out of town occurred after the critics had severely criticised it. We note that the comedy is of course linked metonymically to the people who are involved in it; hence, the lack of homomorphism is once more linked to animacy. Finally, in (19), Sally talked her throat dry, the interpretation where Sally became aware of her throats being dry some time after the event of talking ended is virtually impossible despite the fact that her throat is an unsubcategorised object.
4.5. Construal In some cases both a prepositional phrase and an adjective phrase are possible although no truth-conditional differences are detectable. Consider (20):

12

(20)

a.

Afterwards Gonar said we were foolish not to fight Roingin and spear them dead, (Matthew Kneale, 2000, English Passengers, p.53) The next morning Sutton and two other stock-keepers were found, speared to death near their huts. (Matthew Kneale, 2000, English Passengers, p.75)

b.

Both (20a) and (20b) refer to the actual or potential event of the indigenous Tasmanian population attacking Roingin (i.e. the British white men occupying Tasmania) with spears thus causing their death. Suppose that each of the white men was speared (not necessarily once) at different points in time and some of them did not die immediately. Intuitively, both (20a) and (20b) can code such an interpretation. According to Wechslers model, however, neither would be compatible with it. Since (20a) must be (truth-conditionally) interpreted punctually (dead is a punctual adjective), one would conclude, adopting Wechslers model, that each white man was speared once and died immediately both if there was only one spearing event (i.e. all the white men were attacked at the same time) and if there was more than one spearing event (i.e. the white men were not attacked at the same time). As for (20b), the necessarily multiple instances of the spearing event (required by the path associated with the prepositional phrase to death) would refer to the fact that either the white men were not attacked simultaneously or they were but each was speared more than once and died during the spearing event. In other words, there is no room for the interpretation under which not all of the white men were hit repeatedly and died during the spearing event. In sum, the difference between (20a) and (20b) does not seem to involve truth conditions but, rather, construal, i.e. our ability to conceptualise the same event in different ways by focussing on some of its facets at the expense of others (see Langacker 1987). (20a) construes the event punctually, by abstracting away from the specific points in time at which each instance of the spearing event occurred. On the other hand, (20b) construes the event as a path with some temporal extension (either because the spearing event occurred at different points in time or because the event of dying took some time to unfold, i.e. was not instantaneous). In conclusion, there is some grain of truth in Wechslers distinction between Type I and Type III sentences as involving a punctual vs. a durative interpretation, respectively. But such a distinction reflects differences in construal rather than truth conditions. The use of the adjective correlates with viewing the event as punctual (by abstracting away from its actual temporal

13

extension), whereas the use of the prepositional phrase leads us to view the event as unfolding in real time.
4.6. Competing forms Related to the issue raised in the previous subsection is the observation that Case 2 sentences (i.e. unsubcategorised object examples) do not always allow for the use of an adjective (as we would expect on the basis of Wechslers model) when a potential prepositional phrase might also be employed (see (21ac) and (22a-c)). More generally, we observe that, as happened also with Case 1 examples, not all conceivable resultative phrases are possible (see (21d-f) and (22c-d)), their acceptability depending for example on the type of verb used ( see (21e)).

(21)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

He laughed himself {to death/*dead}. He laughed himself {to sleep/*sleepy/*asleep}. He laughed himself {out of a job/*jobless/*unemployed}. He laughed himself {silly/faint/dizzy/??tired}. They {laughed/#tittered/#insulted} John out of the room. #They laughed John {into the room/down the hall}. He danced himself {to fame/*famous}. He danced his feet {sore/*to soreness}. ?He danced himself sore. *He danced himself crippled.

(22)

a. b. c. d.

(21a) contrasts with (20) above since only the prepositional phrase is allowed. However, this might be a matter of construal. Prepositional phrases seem to be used when the consequences of the verbal event (either punctual or not) take some time to unfold (see the discussion of (17) above). Now, whereas one can die immediately after being speared or not, the event denoted by (21a) (as well as (21b) for that matter) seems to always imply that the change of state took some time to unfold. Hence, the prepositional phrase is selected. In sum, I propose that

14

(23)

Iconicity If the span of time required for the change of state to take place is relatively short, an adjective is used when available (and viceversa). Otherwise, a prepositional phrase is used.

Adjectives focus on the state achieved by some entity (i.e. the affected entity) and, therefore, evoke the temporal path traversed by the affected entity only secondarily (i.e. metonymically). On the other hand, dynamic prepositions such as to or into profile temporal extension directly. Hence, the punctual nature of adjectives iconically accords well with punctual changes and the extended nature of dynamic prepositional phrases iconically accords well with nonpunctual changes. Significantly, note that my generalisation does not involve the nature of the verbal event (punctual vs. non-punctual) and the gradable vs. nongradable distinction for adjectives, which are essential ingredients in Wechslers model. Rather, the choice between adjectives and prepositional phrases (when both are potentially available) is a matter of iconic construal. We must now account for the fact that two options, i.e. a prepositional phrase and an adjective, are not always available. On the basis of the data in (21) and (22), as well as the observation concerning the mono- or bi-syllabic nature of resultative adjectives found by Boas (2000) in the BNC (see section 2), I propose that (24) Phonological length If an adjective is used with a prolonged event, then the adjective is phonologically shorter than the related prepositions complement. (24) captures the contrasts in (21a-c) and (22a-b). All these sentences denote change events with some (non-trivial) temporal extension. Hence, given iconicity, we would expect a prepositional phrase to be used. But the choice between an adjective and a related prepositional phrase seems to be regulated by phonological length. In (21a), the adjective dead competes with the related prepositional phrase to death. Since dead is not phonologically shorter than death (i.e. the prepositions complement), (24) correctly requires the adjective not be used. A similar line of reasoning holds for (21b-c) and (22a). (22b) also satisfies the phonological length implication because sore is phonologically shorter than soreness. Note, however, that, in this case, (24) does not have any predictive value; the fact that the adjective is phonologically shorter than the related prepositions complement does not imply that the adjective is necessarily used (cf. He rubbed his eyes {awake/to awakeness}). It may be that the choice of

15

the adjective over the prepositional phrase depends, other things being equal, on the concrete versus abstract nature of the property referred to by the resultative phrase. The impossibility of *She wiped the table to cleanness (at least if uttered out of the blue) may depend on the (more) abstract meaning associated with the noun cleanness versus the (more) concrete one associated with the adjective. This is also the case with sore vs. soreness, but less so perhaps with awake vs. awakeness. Finally, examples like (21d-f) and (22c-d) show that, as was repeatedly pointed out above, (25) Context-dependency The acceptability of a resultative construction depends on how easily the coded scenario can be activated in the mind of the conceptualiser. In general, basic verbs and basic adjectives are preferred since they refer to basic (i.e. entrenched), and hence easy-to-activate, scenarios.4
4.7. Permanent properties Contrasts in acceptability do not only obtain between the use of an adjective versus a prepositional phrase in the same sentence but also involve the use of the same adjective in two syntactically similar sentences. Consider (26) and (27):

(26)

a. b.

John painted the fence red. *John hammered the metal red. John hammered the metal shiny. *John chiselled the ice shiny.

(27)

a. b.

The contrasts in (26) and (27) are not expected given Wechslers model since hammer, paint, and chisel all denote prolonged events and the adjectives red and shiny are both gradable and closed-scale (cf. very {red/shiny}, completely {red/shiny}). As for (26), the difference seems to involve (relatively) transient versus (relatively) permanent properties. In other words: (28) Permanent properties Resultative adjectives denote (relatively) permanent properties.

The diacritics #, ??, * are to be taken as reflecting the progressively diminishing acceptability of the examples in question. In other words, even starred sentences could be acceptable under appropriate conditions (compare (1a) in 3.1 with (1c) for example).

16

More mysterious is the contrast in (27) since shiny refers to a (relatively) permanent property in both sentences. A possible solution will be offered below (see section 5). For the time being, we simply observe that the impossibility of (26b) and (27b) is not accounted for by Wechslers formal model.
4.8. Conceptualiser-oriented adjectives Also problematic for Wechslers approach are the sentences in (29), which are at best judged colloquial variants of the ones containing the related adverbs:

(29)

a. b.

# Sally painted the room beautiful. (vs. Sally painted the room beautifully.) #Sally loaded the cart heavy. (vs. Sally loaded the cart heavily.)

One could argue that Wechslers model excludes both (29a) and (29b) since beautiful and heavy are not closed-scale adjectives (cf. ??completely beautiful, ??completely heavy). Still, I have pointed out above that adjective classification depends on context (see (14) for example) and hence is not a reliable criterion. In fact, I have argued that Wechslers model is untenable as a formal system because its very foundation, the prediction of obligatory homomorphism (i.e. obligatory temporal dependency) in Case 1 examples, is not correct (cf. (16b), (17) and (18) above). Further, we observe that the adjective beautiful is also impossible in a Case 2 example like (30a), about which Wechslers model has nothing to say. (30) a. *He danced his legs beautiful. (intended interpretation: His legs became beautiful as a result of his dancing) b. He danced his legs sore. I contend that the deviance of (29) and (30a) can be captured by the following generalisation: (31) The experiential generalisation Resultative adjectives (in non-colloquial usage) refer to non-aesthetic (e.g. She painted the room {red/*beautiful}), necessarily perceivable (e.g. She hammered the metal flat vs. *She loaded the cart heavy) properties. Whereas the adjective red in She painted the room red describes a nonaesthetic (i.e. objective) property of the room, beautiful in (29a) and (30a) does, of course. Note also that beauty is attributed to the affected object by the conceptualiser, but is not out there in the real world (whereas we assume
17

that colours are). As in the well-known idiom Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty does not exist independently of us (or at least we think so). Heaviness in (29b) is not necessarily directly perceivable (but see (32) below) and might only be verifiable indirectly by using, for example, a pair of scales with which to measure the weight of the cart with the crates on it. Interestingly, it is possible to find instances where heavy does occur in contexts similar to (29b). Let us analyse the following example: (32) I once loaded it [i.e. the truck] heavy on the back end and experienced some minor rubbing (only on big bumps) but have had no other problems in over 40K miles. (http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/earlybronco/20.html) Although the use of heavy might be colloquial and/or influenced by the occurrence of additional material (see section 4.3), one cannot help noticing that the consequences of the heavy load on the truck are visible (i.e. directly perceivable) in (32). The truck rubbed on (big) bumps on the road, that is we understand that the back of the truck was in a lower position than usual. Finally, it must be stressed that (30b), which differs minimally from (30a), is compatible with the experiential generalisation. The sensation of soreness, although not an objective property in the same sense as flat in Sally hammered the metal flat, is nevertheless experienced by the subject referent and not by the conceptualiser (who is external to the event). In this sense, I say that sore in (30b) refers to a perceivable property (although, unlike colours, not a visual one). 5. GESTALT VERSUS PART-WHOLE PROPERTIES So far I have shown that Wechslers model does not make correct predictions and cannot be maintained because various examples belies its very foundation, the homomorphism requirement for subcategorised object cases. I have argued that a series of factors contributes to the acceptability of adjectival resultative constructions, such as iconicity, phonological length, context, the distinction between permanent vs. temporary properties, and perception. Nevertheless, I have not accounted for all cases yet. The contrast between (33a) and (33b) is not captured by any of the criteria I have proposed, as the reader can easily verify for herself or himself.5
5

For example, it is difficult to say whether (1a) codes a more entrenched scenario than (1b) (especially as far as the variant with the adjective long is concerned).

18

(33)

a. b.

He hammered the metal flat. *He hammered the metal {long/tubular}.

I propose that the crucial notion that allows us to explain the contrast in (33) is the distinction between part-whole properties and gestalt properties. In more detail: (34) The part-whole affectedness generalisation If an adjective describes a property P of an affected object Y, then P describes any part of Y (if possible). Whereas the adjective flat can be predicated of every part of the affected entity metal (e.g. the metal cannot have any bumps on it), long and tubular only refer to the metal as a whole (i.e. to its overall shape). We can select parts of it which are neither long nor tubular (e.g. provided an appropriate reference length such as 30cm, a piece of metal 1m long could be described as long but one hundredth of it, that is 1cm, cannot). Adjectives like flat will be called partwhole adjectives, whereas adjectives like long and tubular will be referred to as gestalt adjectives. Notice that a sentence like (35) (35) He knocked the chair crooked. is not a counterexample to the part-whole affectedness generalisation. The property of being crooked apparently only refers to a part of the chair (e.g. one of its legs). However, the fact that a part of the chair has a leg which is shorter implies that every part of the chair is no longer straight with respect to its original position. In other words, the change in one of its parts implies that all other parts of the chair are altered as well with respect to the spatial axes. This also might mean that crooked in reality refers to a spatial configuration rather than a property. If this is so, (35) is not dealt with by the part-whole affectedness generalisation. In any case, it is clear that no spatial rearrangement for all parts of the metal is implied in cases like (33b), *He hammered the metal {long/tubular}. The part-whole affectedness generalisation also covers sentences like Chris cut the bread thin, where the affected object is the bread and its parts are the slices (each of which is thin). The qualification in brackets in (34), if possible, is intended to account for at least two cases where part-whole adjectives are not used. First, the affected

19

entity may be conceptualised as a point. For example, in Sally battered Chris senseless, senseless can only describe the affected entity as a whole; it does not make sense to predicate it of a part of the affected entity. That is, Chris can be regarded as a point rather than an entity with some spatial extension in the present context. Similarly, in Milton read himself blind, blind can only be predicated of Miltons eyes, not of any other part of his body. Second, the verb, as is employed in the construction, may only refer to a property of the whole affected entity (i.e. the affected entity does have spatial extension but such extension cannot be targeted for predication). Consider (36): (36) I saw him coming back, carrying two sacks that were heavy so they pulled his arms long. (Matthew Kneale, 2000, English Passengers, p.258) Long is impossible in resultative constructions like (33a) above, He hammered the metal flat, because it describes a property of the whole object but cannot be used to describe any arbitrarily chosen part of the metal. On the other hand, long does occur in a resultative construction in (36). Of course, it could be argued that long in (36) is interpreted metaphorically, standing for a spatial configuration (rather than a property) such as down6. This would imply that (36) lies outside the jurisdiction of the part-whole affectedness generalisation. Alternatively, we may note that the verb pull in (36) necessarily refers to an action carried upon an entity (i.e. his legs) as a whole: whereas one can hammer parts of a metal, one cannot pull parts of an arm (under the intended interpretation of (36)). Finally, it is worth pointing out that cases like They piled the crates high do not violate the proposed generalisation because there is strictly speaking no affected object. Rather, we have an effected object since a pile (of crates) is created. The use of the adjective high is however compatible with the experiential generalisation because high denotes a necessarily perceivable property (i.e. the visual property height). 6. CONCLUSION In this paper I have argued that the most recent approach to adjective selection in resultative constructions, i.e. Wechslers (2001) model, runs into a
6

This is also the case with sentences such as He opened the door wide, He closed the door shut, He broke the walnut apart, where the adjectives do not refer to properties of the affected objects door and walnut but, rather, describe (created) spatial configurations: the length between the door and its frame (as seen from the front) was great or null, the walnut was divided into two parts.

20

series of fatal problems. In its place, I have proposed various generalisations, among which are the experiential generalisation and the part-whole affectedness generalisation. They are compatible with the large number of data I have considered and cover all adjectival cases found by Boas (2000) in the BNC. I have also stressed that resultative constructions often code entrenched (i.e. easyto-activate) scenarios. Such an observation correlates well with the limited number of adjectives found in the BNC. They are usually mono- or bi-syllabic and also refer to basic (i.e. entrenched) aspects of life (e.g. death vs. life, positions, quantity, basic physical/psychological states). REFERENCES
Boas, Hans. 2000. Resultative Constructions in English and German. Ph.D. Thesis, University of North Carolina. Broccias, Cristiano. 2003. The English Change Network. Forcing Changes into Schemas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Kneale, Matthew. 2000. English Passengers. London: Hamish Hamilton. Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77: 766-797. Rowling, J. K. 2000. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. London: Bloomsbury. Verspoor, Cornelia. 1997. Contextually-Dependent Lexical Semantics. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh. (Available at www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~kversp/ftp_html/thesis.html) Wechsler, Stephen. 2001. An analysis of English resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Text Structure. University of Texas at Austin. (Available at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~wechsler/papers.html)

21