Pinker (1989) observes that particular manners of so-called manner-of-motion verbs like roll' or bounce' play no role in the mapping between syntax and semantics. This paper argues that while Pinker's claim seems to be valid for the sentences that he cites, it is rash to conclude that the particulars of the manner never count in form-meaning correspondences, in that the differences among manner-of-motion verbs as to syntactic expression of arguments (e. g. roll the doll into a blanket' vs. ?bounce/slide/? * skid the doll into a blanket', roll a blanket around the doll' vs. bounce/?slide/skid a blanket around the doll') can be attributed to nothing other than the particulars of the manner. The information that goes into the MANNER component of roll' and bounce' in Pinker's theory is actually image-schematic and plays a central role in establishing relatedness between senses of these verbs. The image-schematic properties of roll' and bounce' are related to syntactic frames via a form-meaning correspondence model that is crucially based on a two-level verb meaning. The proposed analysis is constructional in that verb meanings interact with form-meaning pairing mechanisms to yield particular senses. But it also attaches much importance to lexical contents of individual verbs and draws heavily on a usage-based view of grammar. In this sense, the present analysis is lexical constructional.