Resultative constructions : cross-linguistic variation and the syntax-semantics interface
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines constructions known as resultative constructions. In addition to the well-known adjectival resultative construction in English, I investigate the resultative V-V compound, found in Japanese, and the resultative serial verb construction, found in Edo. I propose a new classification of these constructions, which focuses on the argument structure of the construction. In Japanese resultative V-V compounds, the argument structure of a compound reflects the argument structure of the second verb only, while in Edo, the argument structure of the construction reflects the argument structure of both verbs involved. With this criterion, English resultative constructions are divided into two classes---a resultative construction containing an intransitive verb is classified with Japanese resultative V-V compounds, and a resultative construction containing an object-selecting verb is classified with Edo resultative serial verb constructions. Based on the classification provided here, I investigate two types of syntactic operations which license the concatenation of the predicates in resultative constructions. I argue that English intransitive resultative constructions and Japanese resultative V-V compounds are formed by adjoining one of the predicates on the other. The adjunction structure is then interpreted as conjunction called event identification. In contrast, English transitive resultative constructions and Edo resultative serial verb constructions are licensed by treating one of the predicates as a causative predicate. I argue that one of the predicates in these constructions undergoes lexical coercion, and acquires a causative meaning. The newly-formed causative verb takes the other predicate of the construction as its complement. This structure is then interpreted with function-application. I hence argue that the structural difference between the two types of resultative constructions also mirrors the difference in the type of semantic operations used to interpret these constructions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it