'The locative Alternation' Pinker(1989)

     In this note, I will introduce the analysis about locative alternation suggested by Pinker(1989).  Before this, I will give a brief explanation of what it is that locative alternation refers to.

Locative Alternation

   The locative alternation, which is also described as the ‘spray/paint’ hypallage, is a phenomenon that occurs when certain verbs such as putting or removing invoke an alternation between material and locational arguments, as illustrated in (1).

(1) a. John sprayed paint on the wall.  (material variant)
     b. John sprayed the wall with paint.  (locational variant)

A sentence like (1a) is referred to as a material variant, where the material argument is realized as the direct object and the locational argument as a PP.  By contrast, a sentence like (1b) is described as a locational variant, where the locational argument is construed as the direct object and the material argument as a PP.

Pinker(1989)

     In the sentence like (1), there is also a semantic correlate.  The discussion below is based on Pinker (1989: 90-97).  There is a general linking rule making the theme that is changed or affected by something the direct object, be it a material or a location (Pinker 1989: 97).  Thus, the material is the direct object in the material variant because it is the theme of movement, and the location is the direct object in the locational variant because it is the theme of a change of state.  The notion of the theme (i.e., the thing that is changed or affected by something) can lead to holism requirement (i.e., state change requirement), allowing a material variant to have a location change meaning; on the other hand, a locational variant to have a state change meaning. Specifically, sentences like (1a) are something that happens to paint; sentences like (1b) is something that happens to wall.  In addition to the discussion above, why do locative alternation verbs have two material variants?  They do so because of a gestalt shift and the ability of the predicate to support the shift (Pinker 1989: 93-95).  The former means that one can interpret spraying as moving a material (e.g., paint) to a location (e.g., the wall), but one can also interpret the same act as changing the state of a location (e.g., the wall) from empty to full by means of moving something (e.g., paint) into it, despite the fact that both variants represent the same situation. The latter (i.e. the ability of a predicate) indicates that an alternating verb such as spray/load, not pour or fill specifies the motion of an object or substance, permitting a material variant, and this kind of motion predictably affects the surface that receives the substance.  In other words, locative alternation verbs as such have the following intrinsic meaning: moving substance in a particular manner to an object and affect object in a particular way by adding substance.

Reference

Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT press