A Modification of the Unique Path Constraint
Masaki Yasuhara
University of Tsukuba
1. The Unique Path Constraint
It has been pointed out that a change-of-state expression cannot co-occur with achange-of-location expression in a single clause (Goldberg (1991:368)). In (1), the change-of-state
expression black and blue and the change-of-location expression out of the room are not compatible:(1) a. * Sam kicked Bill black and blue out of the room.
b. * Sam kicked Bill out of the room black and blue.
Goldberg calls this co-occurrence restriction the Unique Path Constraint (UPC). She notes that
sentences like (2), in which the change-of-position expression straight is compatible with thechange-of-location expression up, do not violate the UPC because they satisfy condition (3).
Goldberg states that this condition is applicable to change-of-position verbs such as stand and sit:
(2)Stand up straight(3)[T]he object undergoing the change remains anchored at a fixed location, whilerearranging parts of its extension in space.
(Goldberg (1991:375))
Condition (3) states that when change-of-position is not independent of change-of-location, both ofthe changes can be seen as a unique change.
In (2), up defines the motion of only a part of thebody, with the legs anchored at a fixed location, which satisfies the condition.
Thechange–of-position of straight is not independent of the change-of-location of up; therefore, bothchanges can be considered a unique change. Thus, (2) does not violate the UPC.
2. Apparent counterexamples to the UPC
Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:60) (L&RH) argue that (4) is problematic for the UPC
because the change-of-state verb crack co-occurs with the path phrase into the glass:(4)
The cook cracked the eggs into the glass.
To explain the acceptability of (4), L&RH propose an additional constraint (5):(5)

A change-of-state verb is compatible with a change-of-location expression when theobject NP can refer to two entities.
According to L&RH, (4) is acceptable because the eggs can refer to two entities, the content and theshell, thus satisfying constraint (5). Their explanation is also applicable to (6):(6)
* I broke the mirror into the garbage pail.
L&RH claim that (6) is unacceptable because the mirror cannot refer to two entities; a broken mirror
cannot be understood to refer to “a mirror.”
L&RH’s analysis appears to solve the contrast in acceptability between (4) and (6), butsentence (7a) below, which includes the NP the mirror, poses a serious problem for their analysis.

(7a) is acceptable even if the mirror cannot refer to two entities:(7) a.
John broke the mirror into the trash can little by little.
b. # John broke the mirror into the trash can.
(7a) is acceptable in the interpretation “John divided the mirror little by little while he put the pieceof it into the trash can.” In this interpretation, only a part of the mirror moves into the trash can atone time. In contrast, sentence (7b) shows that with the interpretation “John broke the mirror into
pieces on the floor, and then, he put all of the pieces into the trash can at one time,” this sentence
becomes unacceptable. In this interpretation, the whole part moves into the trash can at one time.
Thus, L&RH’s analysis not only makes a wrong prediction about the grammaticality of (7a) but alsotells us nothing about the contrast between (7a) and (7b).
3. Proposal
In this paper, I argue that sentence (4) is not a true counterexample of the UPC and can be
explained by modifying condition (3). I propose that this condition can also apply tochange-of-state verbs (e.g., break and burn) as well as change-of-position verbs. We can thus
explain the acceptability of sentence (4): it is only the content part that moves into the glass, and theshell part remains anchored at a fixed location, say, the cook’s hands. In fact, the followingsentence is not acceptable in an interpretation in which both the content and the shell move along apath:(8)# John broke the egg into the bowl. (Situation: John broke the egg, and both thecontent part and the shell part fell into the bowl.)
Our analysis also explains the acceptability of (7a). In this sentence, only part of the mirror
moves at one time, with the rest of it anchored at a fixed location. Moreover, we can rule out (6) bysaying that it violates condition (3); in this example, the whole mirror moves along a path, andnothing remains anchored at a fixed place.
The same explanation also holds for (9):(9) a. * The rocket burned into the hotel.
(Jackendoff (1990:241))b.
The fire burned to the northwest,…
(F. Barstad, Best Hikes near Portland)
In (9a), the rocket as a whole moves along a path, thus violating condition (3). In (9b), however,part of the fire moves along a path, thus satisfying this condition.
References
Goldberg, A. (1991) “It Can’t Go Down the Chimney Up: Path and the English Resultative,” BLS 17,368-378.
Jackendoff, R. (1990) Semantic Structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics
Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.