Directional resultatives show puzzling syntactic restrictions. In Romance, broadly speaking, they do not occur at all with manner-of-motion verbs. In Dutch, directional resultatives with mannerof-motion verbs usually force postpositional order in the directional PP -but prepositional order is grammatical under cir cumstances that have so far defied a unified and insightful account. Focusing primarily on Dutch, this paper presents an analysis of directional resultative constructions and the

more »

... ctic representation of manner of motion which is centred around the following main claims: (a) directional resultative construc tions with manner-of-motion verbs can in principle be built on either of two structures, one featuring the light verb GO and the other the light verb GET; (b) while both light verbs take a small-clausal complement, GET takes one that is headed by a particle; (c) the particle in GET-constructions can license a null directional P in the struc ture of directional PPs built on a non-inherently directional adposition, and deliver prepositional order; (d) the absence of a particle in GO-constructions forces the null directional P in directional PPs built on non-inherently directional adpositions to either incorporate into GO or have the locative P embedded in its com plement to raise up to it; (e) manner-of-motion verbs have a MANNER component adjoined to GO/GET; (f) P-incorporation into MANNER-modified GO/GET is inadmissible (due to a ban on multiple adjunction to the same head); (g) in GO+MANNER structures, a null directional P can hence be licensed only by having a loc a tive P raise up to it; (h) raising of a locative P up to a directional P results in postpositional word order in Dutch, whereas the absence of raising of P Loc up to P Dir delivers prepositional surface order.