---
title: "Variable agentivity: Polysemy or underspecification (2024)"
description: "This specialized sense builds the broom into the meaning. 82 references, cited by 2 papers here."
authors: ["Malka Rappaport Hovav", "Beth Levin"]
year: 2024
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/10774/"
doi: "10.16995/glossa.10774"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hovav-2024-variable-agentivity-polysemy-or-underspecification/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hovav-2024-variable-agentivity-polysemy-or-underspecification/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/14/) / Variable agentivity: Polysemy or underspecification

# Variable agentivity: Polysemy or underspecification

**Authors:** Malka Rappaport Hovav and [Beth Levin](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/beth-levin/) · **Year:** 2024 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2024/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10774) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/10774/galley/33814/download) · [DOI 10.16995/glossa.10774](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10774) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4399785641)

**Citations:** 1 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [2](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hovav-2024-variable-agentivity-polysemy-or-underspecification/cited-by/) in our library, of the 149,439 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
The paper asks why many English verbs that usually take an intentional, animate subject also accept inanimate, non-intentional ones (e.g., a branch sweeping a window). Is this because one sense leaves agentivity open, or because the verb has two related senses? The authors study a single verb, sweep, using a random sample of physical (non-figurative) uses drawn from COCA.

They find that sweep has two senses:
- **Basic sense.** Something moves along a surface and exerts force through contact. This sense is neutral about agentivity, and an agentive reading for animate subjects comes from pragmatic inference.
- **Broom sense.** This specialized sense builds the broom into the meaning. It is always agentive and behaves like a routine goal-directed activity.

The authors give an event structure for each sense. They show that each sense's syntax and interpretation follow from general argument-realization and composition principles. So both underspecification and motivated polysemy are needed for one verb. Inanimate-subject uses without any result also undercut the "resultative restriction," a claim common in little-v analyses.

## Key points
- **Data:** a random COCA sample of sweep. Figurative subjects such as emotions, fads and gazes are excluded.
- **The two senses:**
  - *basic-sweep*: unspecified for agentivity, with agentivity added by implicature (following Holisky 1987 and Van Valin & Wilkins 1996, who use an "effector" role).
  - *broom-sweep*: obligatorily agentive and permits unspecified objects.
- **Where broom-sweep comes from:** an established process that lexicalizes an instrument, fixing an event participant to the concept of a broom. That process usually yields denominal verbs, but not in this case. The verb bake shows a similar split.
- **Against the resultative restriction:** an example of willow branch tips brushing the ground has an inanimate subject and no result. It counters both Schäfer's (2012) resultative restriction and Folli & Harley's (2008) teleological-capability refinement.
- **Not regular polysemy:** the two senses cannot be co-predicated, which separates this case from regular (Apresjan-style) polysemy. Resultatives such as "The wind swept the fields bare" are left for future work.

## Interesting ideas
- Treat a verb's most typical use as possibly a specialized sense rather than its core meaning, and check this against the full range of corpus uses.
- Agentivity can be a defeasible inference triggered by animacy, not a fixed role entailment; adverbs like "accidentally" with a human subject show it can be cancelled.
- Lexicalizing an instrument narrows a sense, and routine goal-oriented activity explains why the object may be dropped ("Matt swept" means he swept with a broom).
- Co-predication tests are used to tell motivated verbal polysemy apart from regular polysemy.
- A single abstract event structure (motion along a surface with force via contact) is shared by agentive and non-agentive uses.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (world): Verb-class knowledge could store a neutral core sense plus specialized subsenses, so non-prototypical uses (a branch sweeping a window) still map to a sensible frame.
- **I2** (frames): The prag crate could assign a neutral effector-like role and add "intentional" as a cancellable implicature when the subject is animate, keeping the reasoning explainable.
- **I3** (world): When an object is omitted, the world builder could fill in an implied instrument and a default surface for broom-type senses instead of leaving the slot empty.
- **I4** (learn): Evaluation sets could include zeugma-style negative controls to check that sense disambiguation does not wrongly merge distinct verb senses.
- **I5** (back): Generation could rely on one event template and choose subject type freely, producing both agentive and natural-force paraphrases from the same meaning graph.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [Stanford University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/stanford-university/) — University, Stanford, United States · 506 works · 330,052 citations
- [Hebrew University of Jerusalem](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/hebrew-university-of-jerusalem/) — University, Jerusalem, Israel · 69 works · 9,594 citations

📚 Shelves (4): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,649 works · [💭 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/experimental-and-cognitive-psychology/) · 930 works

🧭 Topics (1): [📖 Lexical semantics & word embeddings](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/lexical-semantics/) · 65 works

## Cite

Cite as: Malka Rappaport Hovav and Beth Levin. 2024. Variable agentivity: Polysemy or underspecification. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{hovav2024variable,
  title = {{Variable agentivity: Polysemy or underspecification}},
  author = {Malka Rappaport Hovav and Beth Levin},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.10774},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10774}
}
```

- [← previous Using Sarcasm to Improve Cyberbullying Detection](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/guo-2024-sarcasm-improve-cyberbullying-detection/)
- [next → Voice and Choice: Investigating the Role of Prosodic Variation in Request Compliance and Perceived Politeness Using Conversational TTS](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/szekely-2024-voice-choice-investigating-role-prosodic/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/14/)

## References

82 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Mateu, Jaume. 2014. From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Borer, Hagit & Schäfer, Florian (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 14–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/)
2. Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199571949.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof)
3. Alexiadou, Artemis & Martin, Fabienne & Schäfer, Florian. 2017. Optionally causative manner verbs: When implied results get entailed. Handout. Roots V. London: Queen Mary University of London & University College London. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alexiadou%2C+Artemis+%26+Martin%2C+Fabienne+%26+Sch%C3%A4fer%2C+Florian%2E+2017%2E+Optionally+causative+manner+verbs%3A+When+implied+results+get+entailed%2E+Handout%2E+Roots+V%2E+London%3A+Queen+Mary+University+of+London+%26+Univer)
4. Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 40–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alexiadou%2C+Artemis+%26+Sch%C3%A4fer%2C+Florian%2E+2006%2E+Instrument+subjects+are+agents+or+causers%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+25th+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Linguistics%2C+40%E2%80%9348%2E+Somerville%2C+MA%3A+Cascadilla+Procee)
5. Apresjan, Jurij D. 1973. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 142. 5–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ ling.1974.12.142.5 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
6. Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793936 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511793936)
7. Atkins, Beryl T. & Kegl, Judith & Levin, Beth. 1988. Anatomy of a verb entry: From linguistic theory to lexicographic practice. International journal of lexicography 1. 84–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/1.2.84 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/1.2.84)
8. Ausensi, Josep. 2019. Agent entailments induce manner properties: Evidence from verbs of killing. In Van Alem, Astrid & De Sisto, Mirella & Kerr, Elisabeth J. & Wall, Joanna (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, 118–134. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ausensi%2C+Josep%2E+2019%2E+Agent+entailments+induce+manner+properties%3A+Evidence+from+verbs+of+killing%2E+In+Van+Alem%2C+Astrid+%26+De+Sisto%2C+Mirella+%26+Kerr%2C+Elisabeth+J%2E+%26+Wall%2C+Joanna+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the)
9. Ausensi, Josep. 2021. The contribution of roots: The division of labor between grammar and the lexicon in meaning composition. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ausensi%2C+Josep%2E+2021%2E+The+contribution+of+roots%3A+The+division+of+labor+between+grammar+and+the+lexicon+in+meaning+composition%2E+Barcelona%3A+Universitat+Pompeu+Fabra+dissertation%2E)
10. Beavers, John & Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2020. The roots of verbal meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001)
11. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 2: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001)
12. Brisson, Christine. 1994. The licensing of unexpressed objects in English verbs. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 1: The main session, 90–102. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brisson%2C+Christine%2E+1994%2E+The+licensing+of+unexpressed+objects+in+English+verbs%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+30th+annual+meeting+of+the+Chicago+Linguistic+Society%2C+vol%2E+1%3A+The+main+session%2C+90%E2%80%93102%2E+Chicago%3A)
13. Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Subject restrictions, particle verbs and consumption verbs. Linguistics commentary. http://lingcomm.blogspot.com/2010/05/subject-restrictions-particle-verbs-and. html Copley, Bridget & Harley, Heidi. 2015. A force-theoretic framework for event structure. Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 103–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9168-x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9168-x)
14. Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Croft%2C+William%2E+1991%2E+Syntactic+categories+and+grammatical+relations%2E+Chicago%3A+The+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
15. Croft, William. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 21–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Croft%2C+William%2E+1998%2E+Event+structure+in+argument+linking%2E+In+Butt%2C+Miriam+%26+Geuder%2C+Wilhelm+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+projection+of+arguments%3A+Lexical+and+compositional+factors%2C+21%E2%80%9363%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI+Publicati)
16. Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001)
17. Cruse, D. A. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9. 11–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003509 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700003509)
18. Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cruse%2C+D%2E+A%2E+1986%2E+Lexical+semantics%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
19. Cruse, D. A. 1995. Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint. In Saint-Dizier, Patrick & Viegas, Evelyne (eds.), Computational lexical semantics, 31–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527227.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511527227.004)
20. Davies, Mark. 2008–. The corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Davies%2C+Mark%2E+2008%E2%80%93%2E+The+corpus+of+Contemporary+American+English+%28COCA%29%2E+Provo%2C+UT%3A+Brigham+Young+University%2E)
21. Demirdache, Hamida & Fabienne Martin. 2015. Agent control over non-culminating events. In Barrajón López, Elisa & Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis & Rodríguez Rosique, Susana (eds.), Verb classes and aspect, 185–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ ivitra.9.09dem Dölling, Johannes. 2021. Systematic polysemy. In Gutzmann, Daniel & Matthewson, Lisa & Meier, Cécile & Rullmann, Hotze & Zimmermann, Thomas Ede (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem099 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem099)
22. Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7)
23. Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021)
24. Fillmore, Charles J. 1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 120–133. Waltham, MA: Ginn. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fillmore%2C+Charles+J%2E+1970%2E+The+grammar+of+hitting+and+breaking%2E+In+Jacobs%2C+Roderick+A%2E+%26+Rosenbaum%2C+Peter+S%2E+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Readings+in+English+Transformational+Grammar%2C+120%E2%80%93133%2E+Waltham%2C+MA%3A+Ginn%2E)
25. Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2005. Consuming results in Italian and English: Flavors of V. In Kempchinsky, Paula & Slabakova, Roumyana (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5)
26. Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118. 190–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004)
27. Frisson, Steven. 2009. Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 111–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00104.x)
28. Frisson, Steven. 2015. About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies. Lingua 157. 17–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.017 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.017)
29. Geuder, Wilhelm & Weisgerber, Matthias. 2006. Manner and causation in movement verbs. In Ebert, Christian & Endriss, Cornelia (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10, 125–137. (ZAS papers in linguistics 44.) Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.44.2006.305 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.44.2006.305)
30. Glass, Lelia. 2022. English verbs can omit their objects when they describe routines. English Language and Linguistics 26. 49–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067432100 0022 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s136067432100)
31. Goldschmidt, Anja & Zwarts, Joost. 2016. Force vectors in verb semantics. In Proceedings of the 26th annual Semantics and Linguistic Theory conference, 433–450. Washington DC and Ithaca, NY: Linguistic Society of America and Cornell Linguistics Circle. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt. v26i0.3780 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt)
32. Grimm, Scott. 2007. The bounds of subjecthood: Evidence from instruments. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 178–189. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v33i1.3526 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v33i1.3526)
33. Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grimshaw%2C+Jane%2E+2005%2E+Words+and+structure%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI+Publications%2E)
34. Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40. 225–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010)
35. Harley, Heidi & Haugen, Jason. 2007. Are there really two different classes of instrumental denominal verbs in English? Snippets 16. 9–10. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Harley%2C+Heidi+%26+Haugen%2C+Jason%2E+2007%2E+Are+there+really+two+different+classes+of+instrumental+denominal+verbs+in+English%3F+Snippets+16%2E+9%E2%80%9310%2E)
36. Haugen, Jason D. 2009. Hyponymous objects and Late Insertion. Lingua 119. 242–262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.008 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.008)
37. Heidinger, Steffen & Huyghe, Richard. 2024. Semantic roles and the causative-anticausative alternation: Evidence from French change-of-state verbs. Linguistics 62. 159–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0207 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0207)
38. Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/97831123 27241 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/97831123)
39. Holisky, Dee Ann. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71. 103–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6)
40. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jackendoff%2C+Ray+S%2E+1990%2E+Semantic+structures%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
41. Joo, Sehrang & Yousif, Sami R. & Martin, Fabienne & Keil, Frank C. & Knobe, Joshua. 2022. No privileged link between intentionality and causation: Generalizable effects of agency in language. In Proceedings of the 44th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 694–700. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uxv7z [↗](https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uxv7z)
42. Kearns, Kate. 2000. Semantics. London: St. Martin’s. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kearns%2C+Kate%2E+2000%2E+Semantics%2E+London%3A+St%2E+Martin%E2%80%99s%2E)
43. Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alsina, Alex & Bresnan, Joan & Sells, Peter (eds.), Complex predicates, 473–499. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kiparsky%2C+Paul%2E+1997%2E+Remarks+on+denominal+verbs%2E+In+Alsina%2C+Alex+%26+Bresnan%2C+Joan+%26+Sells%2C+Peter+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Complex+predicates%2C+473%E2%80%93499%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI+Publications%2E)
44. Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levin%2C+Beth%2E+1993%2E+English+verb+classes+and+alternations%2E+Chicago%3A+The+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
45. Levin, Beth. 2015. Verb classes within and across languages. In Malchukov, Andrej L. & Comrie, Bernard (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 2: Case studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and theoretical outlook, 1627–1670. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110429343-019 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110429343-019)
46. Levin, Beth. 2017. The elasticity of verb meaning revisited. In Proceedings of the 27th annual Semantics and Linguistic Theory conference, 571–599. Washington DC and Ithaca, NY: Linguistic Society of America and Cornell Linguistics Circle. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v27i0.4187 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v27i0.4187)
47. Levin, Beth. 2020. Resultatives and constraints on concealed causatives. In Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur & Boneh, Nora (eds.), Perspectives on causation: Selected papers from the Jerusalem 2017 workshop, 185–217. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34308-8_6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34308-8_6)
48. Levin, Beth. 2023. Disentangling (non-)agentivity, telicity, and result state. Slides. Workshop on maximalization strategies in the event domain. Debrecen: University of Debrecen. Levin, Beth. To appear. Pounding up the stairs and slamming into the wall: English hitting verbs in motion event descriptions. In Corre, Eric & Sarda, Laure (eds.), Neglected aspects of motion-event description: Deconstructing motion events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levin%2C+Beth%2E+2023%2E+Disentangling+%28non%2D%29agentivity%2C+telicity%2C+and+result+state%2E+Slides%2E+Workshop+on+maximalization+strategies+in+the+event+domain%2E+Debrecen%3A+University+of+Debrecen%2E+Levin%2C+Beth%2E+To+appe)
49. Levin, Beth & Krejci, Bonnie. 2019. [Talking about the weather: Two construals of precipitation events in English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/levin-2019-talking-about-weather-two-construals/). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4: 58. 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.794 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.794)
50. Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41. 123–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90034-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90034-2)
51. Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levin%2C+Beth+%26+Rappaport+Hovav%2C+Malka%2E+1995%2E+Unaccusativity%3A+At+the+syntax%2Dlexical+semantics+interface%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
52. Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2014. Manner and result: A view from clean. In Pensalfini, Rob & Turpin, Myfany & Guillemin, Diana (eds.), Language description informed by theory, 337–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.147.14lev [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.147.14lev)
53. Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lieber%2C+Rochelle%2E+2004%2E+Morphology+and+lexical+semantics%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
54. Lundquist, Björn & Ramchand, Gillian. 2012. Contact, animacy, and affectedness in Germanic. In Ackema, Peter & Alcorn, Rhona & Heycock, Caroline & Jaspers, Dany (eds.), Comparative Germanic syntax: The state of the art, 223–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.191.08lun Martin, Fabienne & Schäfer, Florian. 2013. On the argument structure of verbs with mono- and bi-eventive uses. In Proceedings of the 42nd meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 297–308. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.191.08lun)
55. Mateu, Jaume. 2012. Structure of the verb phrase. In Hualde, José Ignacio & Olarrea, Antxon & O’Rourke, Erin (eds.), The handbook of Spanish linguistics, 333–353. Chichester: Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118228098.ch17 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118228098.ch17)
56. Mateu, Jaume & Rigau, Gemma. 2010. Verb-particle constructions in Romance: A lexical-syntactic account. Probus 22. 241–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2010.009 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2010.009)
57. McNally, Louise & Spalek, Alexandra A. 2022. Grammatically relevant aspects of meaning and verbal polysemy. Linguistics 60. 1943–1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0167 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0167)
58. Mittwoch, Anita. 2005. Unspecified arguments in episodic and habitual sentences. In Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Rapoport, Tova (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 237–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0011 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0011)
59. Morgan, Jerry L. 1969. On arguing about semantics. Papers in Linguistics 1. 49–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351816909389106 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/08351816909389106)
60. Nunberg, Geoffrey & Zaenen, Annie. 1992. Systematic polysemy in lexicography. In Proceedings of Euralex ‘92, 387–396. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nunberg%2C+Geoffrey+%26+Zaenen%2C+Annie%2E+1992%2E+Systematic+polysemy+in+lexicography%2E+In+Proceedings+of+Euralex+%E2%80%9892%2C+387%E2%80%93396%2E)
61. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001)
62. Pustejovsky, James. 1998. The semantics of lexical underspecification. Folia Linguistica 32. 323–348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1998.32.3-4.323 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1998.32.3-4.323)
63. Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486319)
64. Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2014. Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua 141. 8–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.006)
65. Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2016. Review of Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian: External arguments in transitivity alternations. Language 92. 471–474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0035 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0035)
66. Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2017. Grammatically relevant ontological categories underlie manner/ result complementarity. In Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 2016, 77–98. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 86. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rappaport+Hovav%2C+Malka%2E+2017%2E+Grammatically+relevant+ontological+categories+underlie+manner%2F+result+complementarity%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Israel+Association+for+Theoretical+Linguistics+2016%2C+77%E2%80%9398%2E+M)
67. Rappaport, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1988. What to do with theta-roles. In Wilkins, Wendy (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 21: Thematic Relations, 7–36. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373211_003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373211_003)
68. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rappaport+Hovav%2C+Malka+%26+Levin%2C+Beth%2E+1998%2E+Building+verb+meanings%2E+In+Butt%2C+Miriam+%26+Geuder%2C+Wilhelm+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+projection+of+arguments%3A+Lexical+and+compositional+factors%2C+97%E2%80%93134%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI)
69. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Doron, Edit & Sichel, Ivy (eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199544325.003.0002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof)
70. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2012. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In Everaert, Martin & Marelj, Marijana & Siloni, Tal (eds.), The Theta System, 150–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0006)
71. Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The Theta System: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 283. 229–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.28.3.229 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.28.3.229)
72. Rissman, Lilia & van Putten, Saskia & Majid, Asifa. 2022. Evidence for a shared instrument prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science 46. e13140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13140 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13140)
73. Schäfer, Florian. 2012. Two types of external argument licensing – The case of causers. Studia Linguistica 66. 128–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2012.01192.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2012.01192.x)
74. Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551321 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511551321)
75. Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and thought. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90008-0 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90008-0)
76. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics, vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6848.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6848.001.0001)
77. Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139166799)
78. Van Valin, Robert D. & Wilkins, David P. 1996. The case for “effector”: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003.0011 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003.0011)
79. Vicente, Agustin. 2018. Polysemy and word meaning: An account of lexical meaning for different kinds of content words. Philosophical Studies 175. 947–968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11098-017-0900-y von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13. 87–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.2.87 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.2.87)
80. Wolff, Phillip. 2003. Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition 88. 1–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00004-0 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00004-0)
81. Wolff, Phillip & Jeon, Ga-hyun & Klettke, Bianca & Li, Yu. 2010. Force creation and possible causers across languages. In Malt, Barbara & Wolff, Phillip (eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience, 93–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0006)
82. Zwicky, Arnold M., & Sadock, Jerrold M. 1975. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Kimball, J.P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4, 1–36. New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368828_002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368828_002)

*Updated 29 October 2026*