Transcript Jena`s slides on Michaelis, Complementation by Construction

Complementation by
Construction
By Laura Michaelis
“Where does a verb’s frame come from?”
1
‘bottom-up’ & ‘top-down’ approaches
Argument Structure Constructions
(patterns that denote situation types)

Verb Frame

Lexicon
(Lexical Projection)
2
Where are these getting their extra
argument(s)?
• A gruff ‘police monk’ barks them back to
work.
• I acted mad and guilted her to come over.
(source: google search)
• [I] lifted [the butterfly] off my finger and
fluttered her into the blue blue sky. (source:
google search)
3
“A gruff ‘police monk’ barks them
back to work.”
Lexical Projection
Construction

Verb Frame

Lexical
Top-Down
n/a
Directed-motion
(NP V NP PPloc)
Add…
Leave as is
bark (v) “move
something from one
place to another by
barking”
4
For context-free grammar:
• This is an issue because…
• Phrasal patterns shouldn’t denote anything
• Phrases supposed to combine patterns rather
then being symbols themselves
• Rappaport, et al. lexical derivation model
(RHL) tries to preserve the compositional
model through Aktionsart Class templates
(P4)
5
RHL Model
• Lexical projection (bottom-up) model
• Verb meanings are represented by even-structure
templates
• Verbs go through semantic operations/ derivations
(simpler ->complex event structures)
• Each of the syntactic frames are associated with a
distinct verb meaning
• Syntactic phrase structures are unaffected
6
Against RHL Model:
Valence reduction and Null Complementation
•
Predictions on Null Complementation
1. As non-structural arguments, second arguments
of bivalent state, achievement, and activity verbs
should always be omissible.
2. For the participants to be recoverable, null
complements should always have existential
interpretation.
3. As structural arguments, patient argument of
accomplishment verbs should never be
omissible.
7
Against RHL Model:
Valence reduction and Null Complementation
Prediction 1

Prediction 2

Prediction 3

She resembles *(Aunt Molly)
I found *(my watch)
We discussed *(the issue)
My feelings are similar (to yours)
I won (the race)
I prepared (for that event) for weeks
Owls only kill (things) at night.
She has never failed to impress (people)
8
Against RHL Model:
Valence reduction and Null Complementation
•
Doesn’t account for:
•
Null complements of non-verbal predicators
e.g. Make me a copy (of that)
She walked over (here).
I’m taller (than you).
•
Null complementation is affected by context
e.g. Where did she cross (the road) - stative/fictive motion
Where does Hwy 42 cross *(Hwy 287) - actual motion
9
Against RHL Model:
Valence Augmentation
• Aktionsart representation fails to account for
examples in which each XP doesn’t
correspond to a sub event
e.g. She crumbled the crackers into the soup
~ x CAUSE[BECOME y <STATE>]
• Becomes problematic when a verbs fits into
more than one class
e.g. They sailed the Caribbean in/for three months.
in -> accomplishment; for-> activity
10
Other Evidences for Construction:
Weird Sisterhood
• Nominal Extraposition Construction
• Exclamatory adjective licenses a NP complement
• “It’s amazing!”
vs.
“It’s amazing the words they come up with.”
• Some others:
•
•
•
•
It’s remarkable the way he fits right into the team
It's unbelievable the rookie talent this season.
It's crazy the time and detail its takes for a wedding.
It's astonishing the things you humans will give your
affections to. (talking about soap opera)
11
Other Evidences for Construction:
Weird Sisterhood
• Just Because Construction
• A negated epistemic verb licenses a just because
subject clause
• “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they
are out to get ya.”
12
Other Evidences for Construction:
Weird Sisterhood
• Hypotactic Apposition
• A copula licenses cataphoric pronoun and a
clausal complement (coreferencial with the
pronoun)
• “That’s the problem is that they hate us so much.”
(vs. The problem is that they hate us so much)
• Others:
• “That’s the problem is that everyone’s got a different
definition”
• “Well, that’s the thing is that I found out in Chicago…”
• “That’s the point is that violent actions are much more
dramatic and memorable.”
13
Other Evidences for Construction:
Argument Quantification
• Quantifier scope hierarchies capture tendencies, but
not specific constraints on argument structures For
example, hierarchies says:
“topical/subject scope non-topical/non-subject”
Creation:
Every oak grew out of an acorn.
An oak grew out of every acorn.
Transformation:
Every acorn grew into a oak.
*An acorn grew into every oak.
14
Other Evidences for Construction:
Argument Quantification
• Why? Scope reflects the pragmatic role of the arguments
Creation:
Creation:
Every oak grew out of an acorn. That oak-TP grew out of an acorn.
An oak grew out of every acorn. An oak grew out of it-TP .
But…
Transformation:
Every acorn grew into a oak.
*An acorn grew into every oak.
Transformation:
The acorn-TP grew into an oak.
*An acorn grew into it-TP.
15
Other Evidences for Construction:
Operator-Free Nominal
• In a similar way, context and interpretation for
the correct/intended reading of the following:
• You have apple on your shirt.
• Apple dries easily.
• Operator-based nominal coersion can’t
explain:
• Hand me some towels.
• Semantic and quantifier frames that
constructions provide are necessary!
16
Other Evidences for Construction:
Paradigmatic Effects
• Certain argument constraints can only be
understandable when a construction is
viewed to override another when two
constructions combine.
• Episodic context:
We discussed *(things) last night.
They destroyed/rebuild *(things)?
• Existential context:
They discuss and discuss (things) but never …
They destroy (things) and we rebuild (things).
17
Other Evidences for Construction:
Speech Errors
“To what extent am I responding to errors that
I’m not conscious of it?”
• This is hard to explain simply with
grammatical functions.
• If see this as 2 construction frames that
compete against each other then are
produced as an overlap, it makes sense.
• In the above case:
relative clause frame + conjunction frame
18
19