Where is the co-event found in the first phase syntax?

While Ramchand (2014) argues that a single lexical item may contribute content to more than one terminal node in the first phase syntax, as these elements are distributed among the init, proc, and res heads, I think there are compelling reasons to assume that manner information should not be part of the syntactic derivation. According to the discussion in the previous sections, the manner meaning is orthogonal to the first phase syntax and is only integrated once the derivation has been sent off to the semantic interface. Assuming that there is a connection between the process head and the manner meaning is not sufficient to conjecture that a co-event is present in the structure.

The view I am arguing for considers that the existence of a co-event should be understood as the presence of two subevents that together form a macro-event. As argued by Talmy, the co-event may be of different types not only manner or cause, depending on the relation established between the framing event and the supporting relation. The category labels that conform the first phase syntax provide the structure, which instantiates event and argument information and which we might correlate with Talmy’s framing event. This structure is later enriched by means of the lexical-semantic information contained in the root, or roots, that instantiate the terminal nodes of the first phase syntax, namely, type-B information. The co-event arises due to the presence of at least two different roots that instantiate the process and result phrases, respectively.

In this sense, whatever lexical-semantic contribution a root can make depends on which terminal nodes it realizes. Consider the case of manner + result roots discussed in Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (2012) as instantiated in manner of killing verbs such as guillotine, electrocute, drown, etc. These authors argue against Rappaport-Hovav & Levin’s (2010) claim that non-stative verbs can only encode either manner or result as these meanings appear in complementary distribution, and how they are realized in event schemas, or other artifacts fleshing out event and argument structure (78). According to Rappaport Hovav & Levin, the ontological characterization of roots will determine their role as modifiers of the event schema or as arguments. In a simplex lexeme, a root may only be associated with manner or result, which are equivalent to the positions of modifier of ACT or argument of BECOME. This fact is used to restrict the types of meanings a root can instantiate. By contrast, a complex lexeme may consist of two different roots encoding manner and result, respectively.

(78) a. [x ACT⟨ROOT⟩]

b. [[x ACT] CAUSE [y BECOME ⟨ROOT⟩]]

c. *[[x ACT⟨ROOT⟩] CAUSE [y BECOME ⟨ROOT⟩]]

d. *[[x ACT⟨ROOT1⟩] CAUSE [y BECOME ⟨ROOT2⟩]] (in a single verb) (Beavers & Koontz-Garboden 2012:333, (3))

Beavers & Koontz-Garboden challenge this assumption and show that manner of killing verbs contain both manner and result meanings. Specifically, there is no constraint in how many truth-conditional meanings a root may codify. A garden-variety of diagnostics is used to prove this claim, showing that these verbs contain both meaning components (see Beavers & Koontz-Garboden 2012 for further discussion). This notwithstanding, the manner/result complementarity holds true of event structures. By dint of the readings triggered by the scopal adverb again (79) and the restitutive prefix re- (80) in English, the authors show that manner + result verbs behave differently from complex resultative structures consisting of at least two roots as these elements consistently take scope over the result, while manner + result verbs allow not only the restitutive meaning but also a repetitive reading about the manner, or cause, which facilitated the result event. Thus, manner and result in these verbs are argued to form a scopal unit, which preempts the capability of these elements to take scope over only the result.

(79) a. Mary made a sheet of metal that is flat, but it later accidentally became bent.

Fortunately, John hammered the metal flat again.

b. John drowned the zombie again.

MEANS ‘John caused the zombie to be dead by drowning again.’

CANNOT MEAN ‘John caused the zombie to become dead again by drown- ing, but the last time he was killed it was with a chainsaw.’

(Beavers & Koontz-Garboden 2012:357, (65a); 358, (68))

(80) John reguillotined the zombie.

MEANS ‘John caused the zombie to be dead by guillotining again.’

CANNOT MEAN ‘John caused the zombie to become dead again by guillotin- ing, but the last time he was killed it was with a chainsaw.’

(Beavers & Koontz-Garboden 2012:359, (71))

Beaver & Koontz-Garboden’s conclusion is that our ontologies of roots should include manner, result, and manner+result roots, for which they propose an event structure equivalent to that of change of state verbs.

Mateu & Acedo Matellán (2012) and Acedo Matellán & Mateu (2014) further explore the importance of this fact in argument structure, as previously discussed in this chapter. They show that the interpretation of roots depends on the merging position of these elements in the argument structure within their framework. In particular, they argue that the manner interpretation results whenever a root is adjuncted to the verbal head via conflation (81), i.e. external merge, whereas the result interpretation is obtained when the root is incorporated (82), i.e. internal merge, into the verb root.

These operations are aimed at giving phonological form to the verbal head; hence they cannot be applied simultaneously for a single verbal head. Finally, even if this root is argued to contain both manner and result meaning identifiers, its contribution is determined by the position of the root in the syntax.

(81) a. The guy guillotined his way onto the list

b. [vP [DP The guy [v’ √^GUILLOTINE v ] [PP [DP his way] [P’ PTCR the list]]]]

(Mateu & Acedo Matellán 2012:215, (14)

(82) a. They guillotined Mary

b. [vP [DP They [v’ √^GUILLOTINE [PP [DP Mary] [P’ PTCR √^GUILLOTINE]]]]

(Mateu & Acedo Matellán 2012:214, (11)

In the Ramchandian framework, the framing event is the bare first phase syntax, to which a co-event may be related by the existence of at least two roots with the relevant category labels instantiating process and result, respectively. The so-called manner meaning arises in the conceptual interface as the root contributes its conceptual

meaning, or type-B meaning, which I assume is linked to the spatio-temporal unit introduced by process. In this sense, co-event simply refers to one of the spatio-temporal entities present in the first phase syntax, whose meaning is enriched by the conceptual content contributed by the root. Inasmuch as a co-event presupposes dynamicity, I take the co-event to arise minimally from the presence of either an initiation and process head or a process and result head. A co-event is then dependent on the existence of at least two subevents, instantiated by different roots. This hypothesis is further explored in chapter 3 with posture verbs in satellite-framed languages for which, against Talmy (1991, 2000), I reject a co-event analysis as these verbs do not instantiate two spatio-temporal units in their first phase syntax when they denote stationary motion.