Piñango, Maria Mercedes

Wittenberg, Eva

English

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main

When Verbs Share Their Power:The Case of the German Light Verb ConstructionEva Wittenberg & Maria M. Piñangoy“Verb Concepts” ConferenceMontreal, October 3-4, 20081 Foundations:The Representation-Processing Connection• Representation: LTM level of instantiation of language:– Internal articulation: subsystems;– Units and principles of each subsystem.• Processing: Dynamic instantiation with constraints of its own:– input/output is serial;– comprehension is incremental.• Basic Unit: The lexical item as an interface system– Representation of lexical items:SYN: syntactic informationCS: conceptual informationSEM: SYN-CS interfaceSentence Composition: multilevel integration of lexical items according to each subsys-tem’s set of rules.Universität Potsdam; eva.wittenberg@uni-potsdam.de.yYale University; maria.pinango@yale.edu.12 The Light Verb Construction:A Compositional Problem:Consider(1) The man took an orange.(2) The man took a walk.In both examples, take licenses four semantic arguments:<agent, theme, goal, source>The deverbal noun walk invokes the argument of the source verb:<agent>Consequently:(3) The man took a walk. : : The man walked.compositional problem:no 1:1-correspondence between semantic and syntactic arguments!Argument Sharing:– Representational information relevant for the formation of Light Verb Constructions:take: SYN: V [ _NP (PP)]CS: EVENTACHIEVEMENT<agent,theme,source,goal>SEM: Predevent<Arg, Arg, Arg, Arg >walk: SYN: NP [ _ ]CS: EVENTACTIVITY<agent,path,time>SEM: Predevent<Arg, Arg, Arg >• Argument Sharing results in:(4) take a walk: SYN: V [ NP (PP)∗]CS: EVENTACTIVITY<agent,path,time>SEM: Predevent<Arg, Arg, Arg >• Argument Sharing...... is rooted in syntax and semantics... is triggered by mismatch between semantic roles and syntactic arguments... is a “recycling” process: no semantic roles added.2Hypotheses:– Non-Compositional: LVCs are stored in the lexicon as a whole. (Goldberg (1995),Family (2008), Michaelis & Ruppenhofer (2001))– Compositional:(Cattell (1984), Grimshaw & Mester (1988))∗ syntax-driven: composition occurs via syntactic structure alone (Saito & Hoshi(2000)).→ immediate implementation∗ SEM-CS driven: composition results from integration of two argument struc-tures (Culicover & Jackendoﬀ (2005), Piñango et al. (in press)).→ slow to develop implementation3 Two Processing Studies3.1 Methods:• Interference Method: Higher processing cost associated with slower reaction times (VanDyke & McElree 2006, Gordon et al. 2001, Shapiro et al. 1989).• Time Course: Syntactic eﬀects immediately observable, semantic eﬀects at around 300msafter the critical region (Boland 1996, McElree & Griﬃth 1995, Piñango et al. 1999,Swinney & Smith 1994).3.2 Experimental Conditions:3.2.1 English (Piñango et al. (in press)):(5) LIGHT: Mr. Olson gave an order last night to the produce guy.(6) HEAVY: Mr. Olson typed an order last night for the produce guy.(7) DARK: Mr. Olson gave an orange last night to the produce guy.3.2.2 German:[LIGHT](8) AlsWhendietheMuttermotherihremherSohnsonfürfordentheSchulausﬂugschool.excursiondie(the)Erlaubnispermissiongab,gave,warwasdieserheschonalreadygenervtannoyedvonbyihrenherständigenrepeatedErmahnungen.admonitions.When the mother gave her son permission for the school excursion, he was already an-noyed by her repeated admonitions.[HEAVY](9) AlsWhendietheMuttermotherihremherSohnsonfürfordentheSchulausﬂugschool.excursiondietheErlaubnispermissionreichte,handed,warwasdieserheschonalreadygenervtannoyedvonbyihrenherständigenrepeatedErmahnungen.admonitions.When the mother handed her son the permission for the school excursion, he was alreadyannoyed by her repeated admonitions.3[DARK](10) AlsWhendietheMuttermotherihremherSohnsonfürfordentheSchulausﬂugschool.excursiondietheThermoskannethermos.ﬂaskgab,gave,warwasdieserheschonalreadygenervtannoyedvonbyihrenherständigenrepeatedErmahnungen.admonitions.When the mother gave her son the thermos for the school excursion, he was alreadyannoyed by her repeated admonitions.3.3 Predictions:• Non-Compositional:– At LC:LIGHT < HEAVY, DARK– At LC+300:LIGHT < HEAVY, DARK• Compositional:– syntax-driven:∗ At LC:LIGHT, DARK > HEAVY∗ At LC+300:LIGHT = HEAVY = DARK– SEM-CS driven:∗ At LC:LIGHT = HEAVY = DARK∗ At LC+300:LIGHT > HEAVY = DARK4 Results:4.1 German:LC : No signiﬁcant diﬀerence:RTL vs. RTH vs. RTD: F(2, 816) = 0.08, p=0.91)4LC+300 : LIGHT signiﬁcantly slower than HEAVY and DARK:RTL vs. RTH vs. RTD: F(2, 798) = 3.23, p= 0.04)RTL vs. RTH: F(1, 532) = 4.64, p= 0.03)RTL vs. RTD: F(1, 532) = 4.87, p= 0.03)4.2 English: Corresponding resultsLC : No signiﬁcant diﬀerence:DARK= 634.43 ms vs. LIGHT= 619.15 ms [t(19) = -2.01, p<.03, one-tailed].HEAVY= 618.40 ms vs. LIGHT= 619.15 ms [t (19) = .112, p=.456 (one-tailed)].LC+300 : L > H, L = D:LIGHT = 664.44 ms > DARK = 659.04 ms, [t(19) = .634, p=.267 (one-tailed)];LIGHT = 664.44 ms > HEAVY = 645.51 ms, [t(19)=2.46, p=.012, one-tailed].5 DiscussionOn the basis of these results, we cannot reject the SEM-CS hypotheses.• Argument sharing as the product of Sem-CS composition active during sentence compre-hension (psychologically real)• Results consistent with architectures that allow– for SEM-CS representation to be connected to syntactic representation at the lexicallevel (verbs & their concepts)– for composition to take place along with, yet independently from, syntactic composi-tion.Implication:Syntax and SEM-CS are independently compositional.5ReferencesJulie Boland. The Relationship between Syntactic and Semantic Processes in Sentence Compre-hension. Ms., Ohio State University, 1996.Ray Cattell. Composite Predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press, 1984.Peter Culicover and Ray Jackendoﬀ. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press, 2005.Neiloufar Family. A Constructionist Account of Light Verb Constructions in Persian. In ICIL2, 2008.Adele Goldberg. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.University of Chicago Press, 1995.P. C. Gordon, R. Hendrick, and M. Johnson. Memory interference during language processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27:1411Ű1423, 2001.Jane Grimshaw and Arnim Mester. Light verbs and theta-marking. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:205–232, 1988.Hiroto Hoshi and Mamoru Saito. The Japanese Light Verb Construction and the MinimalistProgram. In R. Martin et al., editor, Step by Step: Papers in Honour of Howard Lasnik, pages261–295. MIT Press, 2000.Brian McElree and Theresa Griﬃth. Syntactic and Thematic Processing in Sentence Comprehen-sion: Evidence for a Temporal Dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition, 21:134–157, 1995.Laura A. Michaelis and Josef Ruppenhofer. Beyond Alternations: A Constructional View of theGerman Applicative Pattern. Stanford: CSLI, 2001.Maria Piñango, Edgar Zurif, and Ray Jackendoﬀ. Real-time processing implications of aspectualcoercion at the syntax-semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(4):395–414, 1999.Maria M. Piñango, Jennifer Mack, and Ray Jackendoﬀ. Semantic Combinatorial Processes inArgument Structure: Evidence from Light-Verbs. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society,in press.Lewis Shapiro, Edgar Zurif, and Jane Grimshaw. Verb Representation and Sentence Processing:Contextual Impenetrability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18:223–243, 1989.David Swinney and Edward Smith. Temporal and Qualitative Decomposition of Plausible Rea-soning. Technical report, Air Force Oﬃce Research, 1994.6

When verbs share their power: the case of the german light verb construction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main