1 / 23

The Interaction Between Verbs And Constructions

The Interaction Between Verbs And Constructions. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995): Constructions. Ch. 2. Lucas Champollion Oct 18 th , 2004. Motivation. Some verbs can occur in many distinct argument structures Pat kicked/prodded the wall.

tmerlin
Télécharger la présentation

The Interaction Between Verbs And Constructions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Interaction Between Verbs And Constructions Goldberg, Adele E. (1995): Constructions. Ch. 2. Lucas Champollion Oct 18th, 2004

  2. Motivation • Some verbs can occur in many distinct argument structures • Pat kicked/prodded the wall. • Pat kicked Bob black and blue / Bat prodded Bob into action. • Pat kicked/prodded at the football. • Pat kicked/prodded his way out of the operating room. • Regularities between meanings of diffent verbs in same argument structures • To avoid polysemy of verbs, assign meaning to the construction instead

  3. The Exception Is The Rule • Traditional/generative grammar: principle of compositionality • “The meaning of the whole is a function of the meaning of the parts” • This principle failsfor idioms • Spill the beans not related to either spill or beans • Idioms even come in “patterns”: • Hit me a home run. / ?Bill hit me a home run • Rob me a bank. / ?Bill robbed me a bank. / ?Rob Bill a bank • Construction grammar makes a virtue of necessity

  4. Semantics Construction 2 Construction 3 Construction 1 Lexicon Syntax Semantics Syntax Semantics Syntax Semantics Construction Grammar‘s Approach To Language • Generative grammar (e.g. Chomsky): "procedural" view linking rules + Syntax Lexicon • Construction grammar (e.g. Fillmore, Lakoff, Goldberg): "object-oriented" view

  5. Questions To Be Answered • What is the nature of verb meaning? • What is the nature of constructional meaning? • When can a given verb occur in a given construction?

  6. Upgrading The Data Structure • Traditional approach: lexicon only stores words • CG approach: one uniform data structure for words, idioms, and complex syntactic patterns NEW OLD MEANING DIVULGE-INFORMATION /l۸v/ spill the beans FORM

  7. Examples Of Argument Structure Constructions (I) • Ditransitive construction CAUSE-RECEIVE < XYZ > Subject Verb ObjectObject2 Pat faxed Billthe letter. I will tell youthe solution.

  8. Examples Of Argument Structure Constructions (II) • Caused Motion construction CAUSE-MOVE <XYZ> Subject Verb ObjectOblique Pat sneezed the napkinoff the table. (I thought) you were going to talk meout of the way I feel right now.

  9. Examples Of Argument Structure Constructions (III) • Resultative construction CAUSE-BECOME <XYZ> Subject Verb ObjectComplement She kissed himunconscious. Sam talked himselfhoarse.

  10. What Is The Nature Of Verb Meaning? • Verbs often have richer meanings than what Jackendoff-style decomposition can account for • e.g. laminate, boycott, divorce, subpoena • Construction Grammar’s approach: • Decompositional structures correspond to meanings of constructions • Verbs “plug in” to constructions, bringing along their own idiosyncratic meaning

  11. Argument Structure Construction + Verb Construction + ... = Meaning CAUSE-MOVE <X Y Z> to suddenly, forcefully, and involuntarily expel air through the nose and mouth because of irritation of the nasal passages Subj. Verb Obj. Oblique sneeze <sneezer> Pat sneezed the napkin off the table.

  12. Constructions, Just Like Words, Can Be Polysemous • Ditransitive construction give, throw, take, feed X successfully causes Y to receive Z but also: X causes Y not to receive Z X intends to cause Y to receive Z X enables Y to receive Z refuse, deny make, build, get, win, bake Subject Verb Object Object2 permit, allow

  13. Integrating Verbs And Constructions • Argument structure constructions require argument roles • e.g. meaning of the ditransitive construction: CAUSE-RECEIVE <agent recipient patient> • Verbs require frame-specific participant roles • e.g. meaning of to hand: HAND <hander handee handed> • Roles are types, not atomic elements • Participant roles must be subtypes of argument roles

  14. Roles Can Be Profiled • Argument roles are profiled iff they are direct grammatical relations (e.g. not oblique objects) • Ditransitive: CAUSE-RECEIVE <agent recipient patient> • Caused motion: CAUSE-MOVE <cause goal theme> • Participant roles are profiled iff they are obligatorily expressed • HAND <hander handee handed> • MAIL <mailer mailee mailed> • ROB <thief target goods> • STEAL <thief target goods>  can be derived from frame semantics

  15. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient > Instance or means PREDICATE < *** Insert Verb Here *** > Verb Subject Object Object2 Close-Up On The Ditransitive Construction Pat mailed Bill a letter. John will bake Mary a cake.

  16. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient > Instance MAIL < mailer mailee mailed> Verb Subject Object Object2 Ditransitive Construction + mail Pat mailed Bill a letter. cf. Pat mailed [Ø] a letter. (not an instance of this construction)

  17. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient > Instance, means HAND < hander handee handed > Verb Subject Object Object2 Ditransitive Construction + hand Pat handed Bill the keys. cf. *Pat handed [Ø] the keys. (not an instance of this construction)

  18. When Can A Given Verb Occur In A Construction? • Semantic Coherence Principle: • Only roles which are semantically compatible may be fused. • This is the case iff one role is a subtype of another. • Correspondence Principle (simplified(!)): • Each profiled participant role of the verb must be fused with a profiled argument role of the construction. • But if a verb has three profiled participant roles, then one of them may be fused with a nonprofiled argument role. • The construction may have more roles than the verb. In this case the construction may add roles to the meaning of the composite structure. Dashed lines indicate these roles.

  19. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient > Means KICK < kicker kicked> Verb Subject Object Object2 Role can be contributed by construction (dashed line) Ditransitive Construction + kick Joe kicked Bill the ball.

  20. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient > Instance? Means? ANGER < angerer anger.goal > Verb Subject Object Object2 *Ditransitive Construction + anger *Joe angered Bob the pink slip. ("Joe gave Bob a pink slip, causing Bob to become angry.")

  21. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient > Instance SEND < sender send.goal sent > Verb Subject Object Object2 Ditransitive Construction + send Joe sent Chicago a letter. (only OK if Chicago refers to people)  "send.goal" role must be recipient and therefore animate

  22. CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient > Instance? Means? STEAL < thief target goods > Verb Subject Object Object2 What CG Fails To Explain: Ditransitive Construction + Steal *Robin Hood stole the rich their money. But: You stole me my happiness.  ???

  23. Conclusion • CG assigns meaning to argument structure constructions • Verb polysemy considerably reduced • May be useful for Interlingua purposes • No implementation so far (I think) • Bugs?

More Related