Abstract
Manner/result complementarity hypothesis (MRC) proposed by Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998, 2010) holds that a verb root cannot lexicalize manner and result meaning components simultaneously at a time. It has generated much interest and controversy among researchers. In spite of much evidence for it, researchers have also put forward a variety of arguments against it. This paper reviews arguments against the MRC hypothesis, reexamines the data these counterarguments are based on and reveals that these arguments do not pose real challenge for the MRC hypothesis. Counterexample verbs which are proposed to entail both manner and result actually lexicalize only one, either manner or result, and manner and result are indeed meaning component lexicalized in verb roots rather than aspectual focus.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
