286 JULIA A. JOLLY
(30) John was hungry from Berkeley to Davis.
(31) The fog extends from Davis to Merced.
In other words, adding source or goal arguments to a stative verb gives the
verb a process reading that is acceptable with some predicates and anomal
ous with others (see (32)).
(32) *John was tall from Berkeley to Davis.
The verb class restrictions on maximal LS expansion constrain its applica
tion so that expansion does not become an ad hoc device for "creating" ver
bal arguments as needed, to support classification of a particular preposi
tional role. Thus, only two kinds of expansion are possible: elaborating the
first argument of CAUSE in an accomplishment LS, as in example (27),
and elaborating the second argument of CAUSE in a motion or transfer
accomplishment LS, as in (29).2.3.2 Class two prepositions
Class two prepositions are those which mark arguments not in the verbal LS
but which share an argument of the verb. In the prototypical case illustrated
in sentence (33), the preposition provides a new argument. The sharing of
an argument — cake — by the verb bake and the preposition for is explicit
in the tentative LS in (33b).
(33) a. John baked a cake f or Mary.
b. [do' (John)] CAUSE [BECOME baked' (cake)] PURP [BE
COME have' (Mary, cake)]
The semantic structure of benefactive for will be discussed more fully in the
analysis of predicative and non-predicative for in section 2.7. We cannot
regard benefactive for as a class one preposition, since the only limitation
on its occurrence seems to be that it usually marks the argument of an
accomplishment verb. However, benefactive for does occur with activities,
as in (34) (James Gallant's example, personal communication). Here for
appears to function formally like the deputative (as a class three rather than
a class two preposition) but semantically like the benefactive with
accomplishments.
(34) The mimes were clowning around for the audience.
These functions will be discussed more fully in the analysis of for in section
2.7.