This is used in the oral presentation held at the University of Queensland at 10th of August, 2012. The aims of this presentation are to exemplify the characteristics of Japanese resultative expressions and to provide some implications to cross-linguistic and descriptive perspectives. Resultative constructions have been explored deeply in the fields of syntax, lexical semantics, constructional grammar. Japanese resultatives have also been analysed in the theoretical frameworks and Japanese linguistics. In the previous literature, however, attention has barely been paid to the fact that the ‘Product-resultative’ type is not allowed in English such as ‘*Sam baked a meat pie delicious’ and ‘*David bored a hole round through the board,’ while they are allowed in Japanese. It suggests that Japanese resultatives distribute differently more than the way concluded in the previous literature, where it was concluded that English resultatives have more types of resultatives than that of Japanese. In this talk, I exemplify that Japanese resultatives should be analysed as a type of adverbial modification rather than secondary predication or construction, and do not follow the ‘force-dynamics’ as English resultatives do. I also point out some irrelevant phenomena on the surface such as manner-incorporation, degree modifier, and that VP quantifiers have adverbial characteristics in common. The difference between Japanese and English resultatives shown in this talk provide us some cross-linguistic implications for further research.

1. SLCCS Linguistics Seminar Series, The University of Queensland,
10 August 2012
On Japanese Resultatives:
Cross-linguistic Implications
Ryô IMOTO (Fukushima University, visiting scholar to SLCCS)
imtry@econ.fukushima-u.ac.jp

2. 2
Outline
PART1| Basics of Japanese adjectives
Distribution of bare adjectives
PART2| Variations of resultatives (RSLTs)
Contrast between English and Japanese RSLTs.
PART3| Japanese adverbial diversity
Wide range of adverbial relations
Restrictive modification

3. 3
Bare adjectives distribution
Primary Secondary
Complement
Predicate Predicate
English * √ √
Japanese √ * *
(Adv)
Japanese AP cannot appear in adverbial position.

4. 4
Outline| Variations of resultatives
CR CM VR PR MR
English √ √ √ * *
Japanese * * √ √ √

5. 5
Outline| Japanese adverbial diversity
Qty Non
Mat
VR PR MR Chg Grd MoA MoM
Prg
Mat Chg
RSLT
√ √ √ √ √ * * *
Aspect
√ √ √ (√) √
Material
* * *
/Arg √ √
Patient Product
* * √
Manner * * * * * * √ √
Action Motion
Arg(ument)| syntactic realization as an argument

6. 6
Main claims
Japanese resultatives are based on adverbial modification.
They are entirely different from English resultatives,
which are based on constructions.
Japanese adverbials are diversified.
They modify wide range of meaning: from a change event
to a property of material entity of argument.
We should take the alternative approach, leaving secondary
predication, or constructional approach to Japanese
resultatives: adverbial modification approach.
Secondary-predicate-like case is just a subtype of them.

7. 7
Disclaimers
This talk is an overview of Japanese adjectival adverbials and a
rough sketch of points of issues for further study.
English data and analysis are referred to in the previous
literature (just for sake of comparison): Goldberg 1995, Iwata
2008, 2012, Jackendoff 1990, Kageyama 1996, Levin 1993, Levin
and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Ono 2007, 2009, Rappaport and
Levin 1998, Pustejovsky 1991, Washio 1997, among others.

8. 8
PART 1| Basics of Japanese
SOV: rigid right-headed.
Agglutinative: case markers, postpositions, topic & focus particles.
(Partly) polysynthetic (with V):
Tabe+sase+rare+tak-u+nakat-ta+desu+ka
Eat+CAUSE+PASS+WANT+NEG+PST+STYLE+IMP
‘Didn’t (you) want to be forced to eat?’
No agreement system between Sub/Pred, nor adjective/noun.
No gender, no number, no definiteness as a grammatical category.
And, adjectives conjugate.

9. 9
Japanese adjectives
Adjectives’ conjugation paradigm1:
eg. ooki-i ‘big/large’
ooki(k)-i predicative (present), adnominal
ookik-u+ adverbial, coordinative,
conjunctive (+NEG ‘+nai’, +CONJ ‘+te’)
ookik-at+ predicative(+past ‘+ta’)
ookik-ere+ conditional (+conjunctive ‘+ba’ )
‘ooki-’ and ‘ookik-’ are allomorphs of the root.

10. 10
Japanese adjectives
Adjectives’ conjugation paradigm2:
eg. Shizuka-da ‘quiet/silent’ (Adjectival noun)
shizuka-da predicative(PRS)
shizuka-na adnominal
shizuka-ni+ adverbial
shizuka-de/ja+ conjunctive(+NEG ‘nai’)
sizuka-dat+ predicative(+PST ‘ta’)
-u/-ni: Adverbial forms of adjectives.
Cf. Verbs’ adverbial forms: nom-i ‘drink’, tabe-Ø ‘eat’
Cf. Locative/Goal ‘in/to’ case marker: NP+ni

11. 11
Japanese adjectives
Uluru+ga ooki-i. ‘Uluru is huge.’
[predication.PRS]
Uluru+ga ookik-u, ustukushi-i. ‘Uluru is huge and beautiful.’
[coordination]
Fune+ga ookik-u yure-ta. ‘The boat rolled widely.’
[adverbial modification]
Uluru+ga ooki-i+iwa+da. ‘Uluru is a huge rock.’
[adnominal modification]
Uluru+ga ookik-at+ta. ‘Uluru was huge.’
[predication.PST]

12. 12
Japanese adjectives
1. Japanese bare adjectives can be primary predicates.
George+wa omoshiro-i.
G.+TOP funny-PRED.PRS
George *(is) funny. (not grammatical without be-verb.)

13. 13
Japanese adjectives
2. Japanese bare adjectives cannot be complements,
they must take adverbial form -u or -ni.
Julia+ga *({*utukushi-i/-utsukushik-u}) nat-ta.
J.+NOM beautiful-PRED/ADV become-PST.
Julia+ga heya+o *({*kirei-da/kirei-ni}) shi-ta
J.+NOM room+ACC clean-{PRED/ADV} do-PST
Julia became *(beautiful/*beautifully).
Julia made the room #(clean/*cleanly).

14. 14
Japanese adjectives
3. Japanese bare adjectives cannot be a secondary predicate,
it must take adverbial form -u or -ni.
Julia+ga kami+o {*aka-i/akak-u} some-ta.
J.+NOM hair+ACC red-PRED/ADV dye-PST
Julia dyed her hair {red/*redly}.
Cf. Japanese RP is not AP, but RP| Morita 2009
-u form is PP| [PP [NP [AP shirok ]-u] φ]
white -N -ADV
Besides her syntactic analysis, I agree with her that it is not AP.

15. 15
Japanese adjectives
Note: no morphological distinctions between adverbials and
secondary predicate.
Julia+ga kami+o {*aka-i/akak-u} some-ta.
J.+NOM hair+ACC red-PRED/ADV dye-PST
‘Julia dyed her hair red.’ [Resultative]
Julia+ga te+o {*ooki-i/ookik-u} fut-ta
J.+NOM hand+ACC wide-ADV wave-PST
‘Julia waved her hand widely.’ [Manner of motion]

16. 16
Bare adjectives distribution
Primary Secondary
Complement
Predicate Predicate
English * √ √
Japanese √ * *
(Adv)
Japanese AP cannot appear in adverbial position.

17. 17
PART 2| Variations of resultatives
Subtypes of resultative expressions (names are expedients.)
1. Constructional resultatives (CR)
2. Causative motion (CM)
3. Verb-based resultative (VR)
4. Product resultative (PR)
5. Material integrity resultative (MR)
6. Others.

18. 18
1. Constructional resultatives (CR)
Based on the Argument Structure Construction.
(Goldberg 1995, Iwata 2008)
Resultative or change of state sense come out from the
construction. [NP V NP AP]([S V O RP]).
The matrix verbs are not change (result) verbs, but
motion/manner verbs.
At least 4 subtypes.

19. 19
1. Constructional resultatives (CR)
CR transitive
Andy hammered the metal (flat).
The horse dragged the log (smooth).
RP can be omitted (with losing change of state reading).
CR intransitive with fake reflexive
Julia shouted *(herself) hoarse.
Matt drank *(himself) unconscious.
Fake reflexive cannot be omitted
*Julia shouted hoarse.

20. 20
1. Constructional resultatives (CR)
CR transitive with a subcategorised NP.
RP can be omitted (with losing change of state reading.)
Debra wiped the table (clean).
CR transitive with a non-subcategorised NP.
RP cannot be omitted.
Debra wiped the crumbs *(off the table).
They drank the pub *(empty).

21. 21
2. Causative motion (CM)
Based on the caused-motion construction.
Resultative or change of location sense come out from the
construction. [NP V NP PP]([S V O PP])
The matrix verbs are not change (result) verbs, but
motion/manner verbs.
Andy kicked the ball into the goal.
Gary sneezed the tissue off the table.
Julia washed the soap out of her eyes.
Matt cracked the egg into the bowl.

22. 22
3. Verb-based resultative (VR)
RP can be omitted. Resultative sense come out from the matrix
verb.
RP further specify the resultant states of direct object (or patient)
brought by change of state events denoted by verbs.
Some researchers do not regard VR as resultative ‘construction’.
(Pustejovsky 1991, Iwata 2008)
Gary painted the wall (red).
Andy inflated the balloon (big).
The lake froze (solid).
The vase broke (into pieces).

23. 23
4. Product resultative (PR)
RPs specify the properties of products made by creation event.
Products are denoted by the arguments of creation verbs.
Material/product alternation
Gary grilled a chunk of beef. [material]
Gary grilled a beef steak. [product]
Debra carved a piece of wood into a toy. [material]
Debra carved a toy out of the piece of wood. [product]

24. 24
5. Material integrity Resultative (MR)
Specifying properties of resultant states of ‘change in material
integrity’ or ‘separation in material integrity’. (Levin 1993)
break, cut, tear, rip etc.

25. 25
5. Material integrity Resultative (MR)
Debra broke the vase {into pieces/*small}.
(Int.) A piece of vase broken by Debra was small.
Julia cut the cake {*small/*thin/*thick/thickly/thinly}.
(Int.) A slice of cake cut by Julia was small/thin/thick.
Adverbs are grammatical. The reading is the same as
‘small/thick/thin’.
‘Cutting action/motion’ cannot be thick/thin.
Cf. Julia sliced the bread thin.| Levinson 2010
Gary shredded the sheet of paper {into pieces/*small/*large}.

26. 26
Variations of resultatives |English
CR CM VR PR MR
English √ √ √ * *
CR| Andy hammered the metal flat. Julia shouted herself hoarse...
CM| Matt hit the egg into the bowl.
VR| Gary painted the wall red.
PR| *Gary baked a meat pie delicious.
MR| *Julia cut the cake thin.

27. 27
Variations of resultatives | Japanese
1. CR is NOT grammatical (OK in English).
* Andy+ga kinzoku+o taira-ni tatai-ta.
A.+NOM metal+ACC flat-ADV pound-PST
‘Andy pounded the metal flat.’
* Julia+ga kanojo+o karakara-ni saken-da.
J.+NOM herself+ACC hoarse-ADV shout-PST
‘Julia shouted herself hoarse.’

28. 28
Variations of resultatives | Japanese
2. CM is NOT grammatical (OK in English).
*Gary+ga tabacco+o hako+kara fut-ta
G.+NOM t.+ACC boc+ABL shake-PST
‘Gary shook a cigarette out of the pack.’
*Matt+ga tamago+o bowl+ni wat-ta.
M.+NOM egg+ACC b.+LOC crack-PST
‘Matt cracked the egg into the bowl.’

29. 29
Variations of resultatives | Japanese
2. CM is NOT grammatical (OK in English).
Even more basic manner verb+PP is not grammatical.
*Julia+ga Central+eki+ni arui-ta
J.+NOM C.+station+LOC walk-PST
‘Julia walked to the Central station.’

30. 30
Variations of resultatives | Japanese
3. VR is grammatical (OK in English too).
Matt+ga kabe+o akak-u nut-ta.
M.+NOM wall+ACC red-ADLV paint-PST
‘Matt painted the wall red.’
Mizuumi+ga kachikachi-ni koot-ta.
Lake+NOM solid/hard-ADV freeze-PST
‘ The lake froze solid.’

31. 31
Variations of resultatives | Japanese
4. PR is grammatical (NOT grammatical in English).
Gary+ga meat pie+o oishik-u yai-ta.
G.+NOM meat pie+ACC delicious –ADV bake-PST
‘*Gary baked a meat pie delicious.’
Andy+ga jimen+ni ana+o maruk-u hot-ta.
A.+NOM ground+LOC hole+ACC round-ADV dig-PST
‘*Andy dug a hole round in the ground.’

32. 32
Variations of resultatives | Japanese
5. MR is also grammatical (NOT grammatical in English).
Julia+ga keeki+o atsuk-u kit-ta
J.+NOM cake+ACC thick-ADV cut-PST
‘*Julia cut a cake thick.’
Julia+ga kabin+o ookik-u wat-ta
J.+NOM cake+ACC large-ADV cut-PST
‘*Julia broke a vase large.’
Cf. Julia broke the vase into pieces. (grammatical)

33. 33
Outline| Variations of resultatives
CR CM VR PR MR
English √ √ √ * *
Japanese * * √ √ √

34. 34
Variations of resultatives
The previous literature
CR VR (Kageyama 1996/2009,
Washio 1997, among others)
English √ √ English > JPN
The facts with PR and MR
Japanese * √ cases have been ignored.
PR/MR fail to the
Andy caused the metal to paraphrase test in externally
become flat by hammering it. (CR) caused change of state.
* Gary caused the cake to become Almost all of resultative
delicious by baking it. (PR) studies in Japan have stuck
* Julia caused the cake to become with the idea of secondary
small by cutting it. (MR) predication and causal chain.

35. 35
What is ‘resultative’ ?
RSLT sense 1| an ASPECTUAL PHASE OF EVENT
[[x ACT] CAUSE [BECOME [y <State>]]] (R&L 1998)
Need to be added to a motion/action event by the construction.
Patient/undergoer of change = force-dynamics in causal chain.
X ACT ON Y Z (Iwata 2012)
RSLT sense 2| a PROPERTY AT RESULTANT STATE
Further specification of <State> at RSLT phase.
(cf. Pustejovsky 1991, Iwata 2008)
RSLT sense 1| [Event metal-IS-FLAT] (stative event)
RSLT sense 2| [Property FLAT] (property)

36. 36
What is ‘resultative’ ?
Japanese| only RSLT sense 2 is involved.
[[x ACT] CAUSE [BECOME [y <State>]]] (R&L 1998)
CR & CM not grammatical → RSLT must be entailed by verb.
PR & MR grammatical → No coherency of force-dynamics is
required.

37. 37
Mini Summary
English and Japanese RSLTs do not have in common except VR.
The gap is broader than mentioned in the previous literature.
Mismatches shown in PR and MR should be accounted for.
English RSLTs are based on the constructions.| CR, CM
(Goldberg 1995, Goldberg and Jackendoff 1996, Iwata 2012)
Change of state and the resultant state of RSLT are added by RP
and applying proper constructions.
Network of constructions: CM>CR.tr>CR.int… (cf. VR)
The ‘force-dynamics’ is required: the force from the causer to
the force-recipient/undergoer of change in the causal chain.
This accounts for the reason why English RSLT does not allow
PR and MR→ causal chain is not maintained.

38. 38
Mini Summary
Japanese RSLTs are not constructional.
VRs specify the resultant state of arguments of the change of
state verbs. RPs do not play a constructional role.
Some researchers have not regarded VR as RSLT
because it is not a construction, but further specifying.
To treat Japanese RSLTs properly with observed data,
we should pursuit an alternative approach, not confining
ourselves to the construction or secondary predicate approach
based on force-dynamics in causal chain.
→ Adverbial modification approach

39. 39
PART 3| Japanese adverbial diversity
Ooki-i ‘big/large/wide/huge’ | spatial quantity = [SIZE BIG]
Ookik-u| adverbial form
1. Verb-based Resultative (VR)
Matt+ga fuusen+o ookik-u fukuramase-ta
M.+NOM balloon+ACC big-ADV inflate-PST
‘Matt inflated a balloon big.’

40. 40
Japanese adverbial diversity| case of ookik-u
2. Product resultative (PR)
Andy+ga jimen+ni ana+o ookik-u hot-ta.
A.+NOM ground+LOC hole+ACC round-ADV dig-PST
‘(Lit.) Andy dug a hole in the ground big.’
‘(Int.) Andy dug a big hole in the ground.’
3. Material integrity resultative (MR)
Julia+ga keeki+o ookik-u kit-ta
J.+NOM cake+ACC large-ADV cut-PST
‘(Lit.) *Julia cut a cake big.’
‘(Int.) Julia cut a big slice of cake out of the cake.’

41. 41
Japanese adverbial diversity| case of ookik-u
4. Quantity of change of state|
Measuring the event with the affected object
Yamakaji+de naya+ga ookik-u yake-ta
Bushfire-by barn+NOM large/wide-ADV burn-PST
‘The barn burnt widely due to bushfire.’
‘(Int.) The barn burnt with its large part due to bushfire.’

42. 42
Japanese adverbial diversity| case of ookik-u
5. Non-gradable degree of difference caused by change of state
Eiga+no+Title+ga ookik-u kawat-ta
movie-GEN-T.+NOM widely/radically-ADV change-PST
‘Title of the movie changed completely.’
e.g. “Batman 3” → “Dark Knight Rises”
6. Quantity of material (size) during the process
Kabe+ni hito+no+kage+ga ookik-u utsut-ta.
wall+LOC human-GEN-shadow+NOM big-ADV project-PST
‘(Int.) A big shadow of someone reflected on the wall.’

43. 43
Japanese adverbial diversity| case of ookik-u
7. Manner of action
Debra+ga te+o ookik-u fut-ta
D.+NOM hand+ACC widely-ADV wave-PST
‘Debra waved her hand widely.
8. Manner of motion
Fune+ga ookik-u yure-ta
boat+NOM widely-ADV roll-PST
‘The boat rolled widely.’

44. 44
Japanese adverbial diversity| case of ookik-u
What does ‘ookik-u’ describe?
Material property| the affected object or produced object, a
part of the affected object at resultative aspect.
Measuring events| Quantity/Degree of change events
with/without material property.
Material property of the argument at progressive aspect.
Manner of action/motion
Cross-categorical diversity
Conceptual semantic categories| [Material/Motion/Event]
Aspectuality | [RSLT/Progressive]

45. 45
Outline| Japanese adverbial diversity
Qty Non
Mat
VR PR MR Chg Grd MoA MoM
Prg
Mat Chg
RSLT
√ √ √ √ √ * * *
Aspect
√ √ √ (√) √
Material
* * *
/Arg √ √
Patient Product
* * √
Manner * * * * * * √ √
Action Motion
Arg(ument)| syntactic realization as an argument

46. 46
Variations of resultatives
Adherence to the idea of secondary predication and the causal
chain leads us
To exclude the other cases except VR and ignore their
similarities and differences among them.
To misunderstand the English/Japanese distinction.
If some researchers exclude the other cases except VR as
adverbials, they should observe their characteristics for fully
understanding Japanese RSLTs, but almost all works have left
them as they are. (Adverbials have been treated as outsider in grammar.)
As a consequence, their arguments are deeper in the details of
VR, but not broad enough to capture Japanese RSLTs as whole.
To begin with, they should explain why Japanese RSLTs should
not be adverbials, they never have. (Miyakoshi 2012)

47. 47
Japanese adverbial diversity| case of ookik-u
VR (target of the previous literature) is a part of data of
Japanese resultatives.
We should pay more attention to the diversity of ‘ookik-u’ for
understanding Japanese adverbials including resultatives.
Interpretations/usages cannot be predicted by itself
Not a lexical polysemy like ookik-u1, ookik-u2, ookik-u3... etc.
Ooki-i | conceptual meaning [Size BIG]
Realized meaning of it is unpredictable from lexicon, until
they appear in each sentences.

48. 48
Restrictive modification| dual/bilayered relation
Modifier/Host| syntactic relation (adjunction)
[NP [AP big] dog], [NP [AP red] hair], [VP speak [Adv Slowly]]
Modifier/‘Modifiee’| semantic relation (modification)
[BIG≡SIZE(dog)],[RED≡COLOUR(hair)],[SLOW≡MANNER(speak)]
Restrictive modification | operation in hyponymy
Modifier| hyponym [Colour RED, BLUE, BLACK, ...]
Modifiee| hypernym (superordinate) [COLOUR],[SIZE]...
A more potent argument that modification cannot be reduced to predicate
conjunction is that many modifiers do not modify their host as a whole,
but rather one of its qualia. (Jackendoff 2002, cf. Pustejovsky 1995)
Further specification to one conceptual meaning of modifiee

49. 49
Restrictive modification| further specification
Akak-u nut-ta. (‘painted sth red’)
[[x ACT] CAUSE [BECOME [y <COLOUR>]]] → […[y <Colour RED>]]
Further specification of resultant state. |Definition of RSLT 2.
Hayak-u hashi-ru (‘run fast’)
[x ACT<MANNER>] → [x ACT <Manner FAST>]] (cf. L&R 1998)
Same function in terms of further specification
Restrictive modification forms if and only if
a modifier and the modifiee are in a hyponymy.
Source of diversity of adverbial relations; various relations are
possible as long as they are semantically compatible.

50. 50
Japanese RSLT is adverbial| multiple specification
Julia+ga kami+o akak-u tsuyayaka-ni some-ta.
J.+NOM hair+ACC red-ADV shiny-ADV dye-PST
Gary+ga cake+o chiisak-u usuk-u kit-ta.
G.+NOM C.+ACC small-ADV thin-ADV cut-PST
Note that all ADVs specifies resultant material properties.
Not grammatical in English| UP constraint, Goldberg 1995
*Julia dyed her hair red shiny.
*Gary cut the cake small thin.
*Andy hammered the metal flat smooth.

51. 51
Japanese RSLT is adverbial | ‘How test’
Q: Kabe+o dô nut-ta-no?
wall+ACC how paint-PST-FIN.PTCL
‘How did (you/s/he/they) paint the wall?’
A1: Akak-u da-yo.
red-ADV COP-FIN.PTCL
‘(I/S/He/They) did red.’ [VR| material property]
A2: Teinei-ni da-yo.
careful-ADV COP-FIN.PTCL
‘(I/S/He/They) did carefully.’ [manner of action]
Dô (‘how’) can correspond to both of ‘SP’ and manner adverb.

52. 52
Japanese RSLT is adverbial | ‘How test’
Q: Keeki+o dô kit-ta-no?
cake+ACC how cut-PST-FIN.PTCL
‘How did (you/s/he/they) cut the cake?’
A1: Ookik-u da-yo.
large-ADV COP-FIN.PTCL
‘(Int.) (I/S/He/They) did large.’ [MR| material property]
A2: Subayak-u da-yo.
quick-ADV COP-FIN.PTCL
‘(I/S/He/They) did quickly.’ [manner of action]
SP/Adv distinction is no as clear as that of English.

53. 53
Adverbial/Adnominal alternation in MR
Gary+ga meat pie+o oishik-u yai-ta.
G.+NOM meat pie+ACC delicious –ADV bake-PST
‘*Gary baked a meat pie delicious.’
Gary+ga oishi-i meat pie+o yai-ta.
G.+NOM delicious -ADN meat pie+ACC bake-PST
‘Gary baked a delicious meat pie.’
Adverbial and adnominal can be altered.

54. 54
Adverbial/Adnominal alternation in MR
Andy+ga jimen+ni ana+o maruk-u hot-ta.
A.+NOM ground+LOC hole+ACC round-ADV dig-PST
‘*Andy dug a hole round in the ground.’
Andy+ga jimen+ni maru-i ana+o hot-ta.
A.+NOM ground+LOC round-ADN hole+ACC dig-PST
‘Andy dug a round hole in the ground.’

55. 55
Adverbial/Adnominal alternation in MR
It is similar to the cases of event nominal.
Giron+ga atsuk-u tzuzui-ta.
discusstion+NOM heated-ADV continue-PST
‘The discussion continued heatedly.’
Atsu-i giron+ga tsuzui-ta.
heated-ADN discussion+NOM continue-PST
‘Heated discussion continued.’
Product in MR and event nominal have the same alternation in
common.→Product created by verb’s event and eventuality
expressed by noun

56. 56
Japanese RSLTs are adverbial | summary
VR, PR, and MR are grammatical| based on the verbs’ meaning.
No sub-event added.
Further specification (≈ modification).
Diversity of modifying relations are cross-categorical.
From degree of change event to argument’s material property.
Multiple specification
It works as long as being semantically compatible.
‘How’ test does not work to distinguish RP from manner ADV.
SP/ADV distinction is not critical.
Japanese resultatives are subtypes of adverbial modification.

57. 57
Japanese RSLTs are adverbial | summary
Adverbial modification view provides an alternative approach.
Lexical semantics developed by Jackendoff 1990, Kageyama
1996, Levin & Rappaport 1998, Rappaport & Levin 1998, and
among others have greatly contributed to exploitation of the
nature and characteristics of Japanese resultatives.
However, there is still a gap between theoretical model
developed mainly based on English and Japanese empirical
data which have carried on Japanese conventional
methodology (Nitta 1983/2002, Yazawa 1983/forthcoming).

58. 58
Further research| controversial data
Resultative adverbs| Geuder 2000
They decorated the room beautifully.
She dressed elegantly.
They loaded the cart heavily.
Pseudo-resultatives| Levinson 2010
Mary braided her hair tight.
Mary piled the cushions high.
Mary chopped the parsley fine.
Mary sliced the bread thin. (cf. *Mary cut the bread thin.)
Mary sliced a thin bread.←OK? (adnominal alternation)

59. 59
Selected references
●Geuder, Wilhelm 2000. Oriented Adverbs: Issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs.
Doctoral Dissertation, Universtäte of Tübingen. ●Goldberg, Adele.E 1995. Constructions: A
Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
●Imoto, Ryô 2012. Nihongo Kekka-kôbun-no-ichizuke-to Ren’yo-shûshoku-bun. 84th ELSJ
symposium. (Japanese) ●Iwata, Seizi 2008. A Door that Swings Noiselessly Open May Creak
Shut: Internal Motion and Concurrent Change of State. Linguistics 46, pp.1049-1108.
●Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of Language, Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution,
New York: Oxford Univeristy Press. ●Kageyama, Tarô 1996 Dôshi Imiron, Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers. (Japanese) ●Levinson, Lisa 2010. Arguments for Pseudo-resultative Predicates.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, pp.135-182. Springer. ●Miyakoshi, Kôichi 2009.
Nichi-ei-go-no Shûhenteki-kekka-kôbun. In Ono 2009. (Japanese) ●Levin, Beth 1993. English
Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press. ●Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical
Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ●Nitta, Yoshio 2002. Fukushi-teki-Hyôgen-
no Shosô, Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. (Japanese) ●Ono, Naoyuki 2009. Kekka-kôbun-no
typology. Tokyô: Hitsuji Publishers. (Japanese) ●Pustejovsky, James 1991. Generative Lexicon.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ●Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin 1998. Building Verb
Meanings. Butt, Miriam and Wilhelm Geuder eds. The Projection of Argumens: Lexical and
Compositional Factors, pp.97-134, Stanford, CA: CSLI. ●Washio, Ryûichi 1997. Resultative,
Compositionality and Language Variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6. pp.1-49.
●Yazawa, Makoto (forthcoming) Nihongo-Jôtai-Shûshoku-Kankei-no Kenkyû, Tokyo: Hitsuji
Publishers. (Japanese)