It has been suggested by some linguists with a 'localistic' viewpoint that the semantic difference as exemplified between (la) and (lb) is precisely that between spatial 'go to' and 'go toward' as in (2a) and (2b):
(1) a. Sue pressured Jim into singing.
b. Sue pressured Jim to sing.
(2) a. Sue went to New York.
b. Sue went toward New York.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. One is to try to substatiate the hypothesis by giving a considerable number of evidence in support of it. The other is to show the extent of implications it exhibits.
In Section 1 I present several semantic and syntactic phenomena which indicate that the contrast as to whether or not the reference event is achieved corresponds to that as to whether or not the goal is reached in space and thus lead us to assume that the two contrasts could be reduced to one in the semantic structure; and incorporate this assumption into the semantic patterns of the basic sentence constructions under a 'localistic' hypothesis of the verb proposed in Inoue (1975, 82). Within this framework the sentences in (1) and (2) have the following semantic representations:
(1)' a. CAUSE ( [SUE]. GO ([JIM], [TO (JIM SING)] ) )
b. CAUSE ([SUE]. GO ([JIM], [TOWARD (JIM SING)]))
(2)' a. GO ([SUE], [TO (NEW YORK)])
b. GO ([SUE], [TOWARD (NEW YORK)])
In Section 2 I make an attempt to explicate the implicational relations of two classes of what Karttunen (1971) termed 'implicative verbs.' By means of the inference rules derived from the above-mentioned semantic patterns, I demonstrate how we obtain from 'two-way implicative verbs' and 'one-way implicative verbs' their appropriate implications. This analysis is more explanatory than Karttunen's in that it clarifies the distinction between 'implicative verbs' and 'non-implicative verbs' in terms of semantic representation and, more importantly, in that it relates implicative behavior to a more general system of semantic representation.