1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In the generative literature, whether manner/result complementarity is correct or not has been hotly debated. This paper aims to shed new light on the debate by approaching manner/result complementarity from a different angle: polysemy. Our focal example is . A detailed frame-semantic analysis of its polysemy reveals that the manner of is to be identified as something like ‘to move quickly in a straight line’. Accordingly, what counts as the manner use and what counts as the result use share the same base, differing only in terms of profiling. Thus, manner/result complementarity simply does not make sense.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23029.iwa
2025-07-15
2026-05-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.23029.iwa
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E.
    (2013) Manner vs. result complementarity in verbal alternations: A view from the clear alternation. NELS, 421, 39–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ausensi, J.
    (2024) The division of labor between grammar and the lexicon. Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beavers, J., & Koonz-Garboden, A.
    (2012) Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry, 431, 331–369. 10.1162/LING_a_00093
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00093 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2017) Result verbs, scalar change, and the typology of motion verbs. Language, 931, 842–876. 10.1353/lan.2017.0060
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0060 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2020) The roots of verb meaning. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2008) Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 571, 17–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bohnemeyer, J.
    (2007) Morpholexical transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics, 181, 153–177. 10.1515/COG.2007.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowerman, M.
    (2005) Why can’t you ‘open’ a nut or ‘break’ a cooked noodle? Learning covert object categories in action word meanings. InL. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp.209–243). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brugman, C.
    (1988a) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (1988b) The syntax and semantics of HAVE and its complements [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
  12. Clausner, T., & Croft, W.
    (1999) Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 101, 1–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) Connecting frames and constructions: A case study of eat and feed. Constructions and Frames, 11, 7–28. 10.1075/cf.1.1.02cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.1.02cro [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015) Force dynamics and directed change. InR. G. de Almeida & C. Manouilidou (Eds.), Event lexicalization and argument realization (pp.103–130). Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  19. Deane, P.
    (2005) Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. InB. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning (pp.235–284). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.3.235
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dewell, R. B.
    (1994) Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 51, 351–380. 10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dowty, D.
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 671, 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fillmore, C.
    (1970) The grammar of hitting and breaking. InR. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp.120–134). Ginn.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (1977) Topics in lexical semantics. InR. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp.76–138). Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–138). Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InA. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts (pp.75–102). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T.
    (2000) Describing polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. InY. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp.91–110). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198238423.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238423.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gast, V., König, E., & Moyse-Faurie, C.
    (2014) Comparative lexicology and the typology of event descriptions. InD. Gerland (Eds.), Meaning and grammar of nouns and verbs (pp.145–183). Düsseldorf University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Goddard, C.
    (2015) Verb classes and valency alternations (NSM approach). InA. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages21 (pp.1671–1702). Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A.
    (2009) Contrastive semantics of physical activity verbs. Language Sciences, 311, 60–96. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2014) Words and meanings. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2004) Argument realization. InJ-O Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars (pp.17–43). John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3.03gol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.03gol [Google Scholar]
  33. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2010) Verbs, constructions, and semantic frames. InM. Rappaport Hovav (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp.39–58). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 801, 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  36. Guerssel, M., Hale, K., Laughren, M., Levin, B., & White Eagle, J.
    (1985) A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. CLS, 211, 48–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hale, K. L., & Keyser, S. J.
    (1987) A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers101. MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Herskovits, A.
    (1986) Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Husband, E. M.
    (2011) Rescuing manner/result complementarity from certain death. CLS, 471, 111–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Iwata, S.
    (1998) A lexical network approach to verbal semantics. Kaitakusha.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2002) Does MANNER count or not?Linguistics, 401, 61–110. 10.1515/ling.2002.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.008 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2020) English resultatives: A force-recipient account. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.26
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.26 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2021) Another look at the interaction between verbs and constructions. Constructions and Frames, 131, 268–308. 10.1075/cf.21006.iwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.21006.iwa [Google Scholar]
  46. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1990) The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 39–74. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Langacker, R.
    (1987a) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (1987b) Nouns and verbs. Language, 631, 53–94. 10.2307/415384
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415384 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (1999) Objecthood: An event structure perspective. CLS, 351, 223–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2015) Verb classes within and across languages. InA. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages21 (pp.1627–1670). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110429343‑019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110429343-019 [Google Scholar]
  57. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1991) Wiping the slate clean. Cognition, 411, 123–151. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90034‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90034-2 [Google Scholar]
  58. (1995) Unaccusativity. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2013) Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. InB. Arsenijević (Eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates (pp.49–70). Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑5983‑1_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2014) Manner and result: The view from clean. InR. Pensalfini (Eds.), Language description informed by theory (pp.337–357). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.147.14lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.147.14lev [Google Scholar]
  62. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (3rd ed.)
    Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (3rd ed.) (1995) Pearson.
  63. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (6th ed.)
    Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (6th ed.) (2014) Pearson.
  64. Majid, A., Boster, J., & Bowerman, M.
    (2008) The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events. Cognition, 1091, 235–250. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  65. Matsumoto, Y.
    (1996a) Subjective motion in English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 183–226. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.183 [Google Scholar]
  66. (1996b) How abstract is subjective motion?InA. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, language, and discourse (pp.359–374). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Talking: A study in lexical network theory. BLS, 131, 195–205. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1820
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1820 [Google Scholar]
  68. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  69. Petruck, M. R. L.
    (1996) Frame semantics. InJ. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1996 (pp.1–11). John Benjamins.10.1075/hop.2.fra1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.2.fra1 [Google Scholar]
  70. Rapoport, T.
    (2014) Verb meaning and context. InG. Girard-Gillet (Ed.), Autour du verbe anglais (pp.121–137). Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
    (1998) Building verb meanings. InM. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Projection of arguments (pp.97–134). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. (2010) Reflections on manner/result complementarity. InM. Rappaport Hovav (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp.21–38). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  73. Slobin, D.
    (2006) What makes manner of motion salient?InM. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages (pp.59–81). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.66.05slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.05slo [Google Scholar]
  74. Sweetser, E.
    (1999) Compositionality and blending. InT. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics (pp.129–162). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110803464.129
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464.129 [Google Scholar]
  75. Talmy, L.
    (2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.1. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. (2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.2. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  78. Tsunoda, T.
    (1985) Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 211, 385–396. 10.1017/S0022226700010318
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010318 [Google Scholar]
  79. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  80. van der Leek, F.
    (1996) The English conative construction: A compositional account. CLS, 321, 363–378.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700029.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700029.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23029.iwa
Loading
The manner of cutting revisited
Constructions and Frames 17, 236 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23029.iwa
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23029.iwa
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23029.iwa
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): change-of-state verb; manner-of-motion verb; manner/result complementarity; profiling difference; subjective motion

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error