Locative Alternation: Understanding Verb Variations
In the locative alternation, certain verbs denoting the transfer of a substance or set of objects (the theme, content, locatum, or figure) into or onto a container or surface (the goal, container, location, or ground) allow two variants:
I. The Locative Variant
In the locative variant, the theme/content/locatum/figure is the direct object of the verb, and the goal/container/location/ground follows, introduced by a preposition (59a, b).
II. The With Variant
In the with variant, the goal/container/location/ground is the direct object, and the theme/content/locatum/figure follows, introduced by the preposition with (59 a’, b’).
Locative variant: NPagent Verb NPtheme PPlocation
With variant: NPagent Verb NPlocation with NPtheme
a. Seth loaded hay onto the cart. b. Ruth sprayed water on the lawn.
a’. Seth loaded the cart with hay. b’. Ruth sprayed the lawn with water.
The with variant is not possible with all verbs that denote the transfer of a substance or set of objects into or onto a container or surface. The obvious question is why the locative alternation (the with variant) is possible in (59) but not in (61).
Irv threw the cat into the room. a’. *Irv threw the room with the cat.
The Holism Effect
The key to understanding the (im)possibility of the alternation with different verbs is that the two variants of the locative alternation are not synonymous and differ in the extent to which the location argument is affected:
- In the with variant (NPagent Verb NPlocation with NPtheme), the location NP in the complement position of the verb is obligatorily understood as being affected to the point of containing the largest amount that will fit in it—i.e., as being completely filled or covered by the theme. This has been called the holism effect.
- In the locative variant (NPagent Verb NPtheme PPlocation), there is no implication that the location NP is completely filled or covered by the theme.
The consequence of this is that the with-variant entails the locative variant, but not vice versa.
The with variant is impossible with verbs like throw and push in (61) because their semantics are not compatible with the holism effect. Again, (an aspect of) the semantics of a verb determines the syntactic position of its arguments –i.e., its argument structure. This analysis is supported by the fact that verbs like fill and cover, whose semantics force a holism effect on the location, only allow the with-variant (63).
(63) a. Seth filled the cart with hay. a’. *Seth filled hay onto the cart. b. Seth covered the cart with hay. b’. *Seth covered hay onto the cart.
The analysis proposed for the locative alternation is also valid for the from/of alternation illustrated in (64). The of variant obligatorily has an interpretation in which the surface or container “is completely empty or stripped following the movement of the object or substance” (Pinker 1989: 58). Like in the locative alternation, there is a holism effect.
The of variant is impossible with verbs like read and throw in (65) because their semantics is not compatible with the holism effect.