In this section I introduce the semantics I associate with the various types of sentences under consideration. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, most of these constructions share a basic interpretation of resalt2a, while the meaning of the verbs of manner of motion, verbs of sound emission, and unaccusative verbs, when combined with a resultative phrase differs from this. In particular, the verbs of manner of motion resultative sentences have the interpretation resalt2b, the verbs of sound emission resultative sentences have the interpretation resalt2c, and unaccusatives have the interpretation in resalt2d.
NP cause
NP 
to be in Result State by
NP V-ing
John hammered the metal flat.
John caused the metal to be flat by John hammering
(it).
John sneezed the tissue off the table.
John caused the tissue to be off the table by John
sneezing.
NP is in Result Location as a result of NP V-ing
John ran to the store.
John is at the store as a result of John running.
The bottle floated to the bridge.
The bottle is at the bridge as a result of it floating.
NP is in Result Location and NP V-ed (emitted the sound V) as a part of its motion there.
The truck rumbled across the intersection.
The truck is across the interesection and rumbled as
a part of moving there.
John wheezed across the road.
John is across the road and he wheezed as a part
of moving there.
NP is in Result State as a result of NP V-ing
The river froze solid.
The river is solid as a result of it freezing.
The snow melted to liquid.
The river is liquid as a result of it melting.
Neither of the Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) and Wechsler (1996) accounts captures these interpretation differences, as both accounts treat all of the constructions in resalt1 as semantically uniform. Although Wechsler does distinguish between two types of resultatives (i.e. control and raising), this distinction occurs along a dimension orthogonal to the contrast between verbs of manner of motion/sound emission constructions and the other resultatives and therefore has no basis from which to account for the interpretation differences. In contrast, Goldberg (1995) is able to capture the interpretation differences explicitly in the definitions of her various constructions. Only the verbs of sound emission are not explicitly addressed in her analysis.