The predicate associated with the verb fails to express its full argument structure, while the predicate associated with the nominalization preserves its original argument structure

Piñango, Maria Mercedes

Wittenberg, Eva

English

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main

Argument Structure in Nominalizations: The Case of the Light Verb Construction in GermanEva Wittenberg & Maria M. PinangoUniversität Potsdam1       Yale University2 1  The Phenomenon: Light Verb Constructions in GermanThe predicate associated with the verb fails to express its full argument structure, while thepredicate associated with the nominalization preserves its original argument structure. (1) Paul  hält  ein  Referat  ≈  Paul  referiert über X.Paul  holds  a  presentation ≈  Paul  presents präpX.(2) Paul hält  ein  Kleinkind ≠ * Paul kleinkindert.Paul  holds  a  baby  ≠  * Paul babi-es.phrase structure in both examples:  [DP [VP V  DP]]semantic roles:  (2) Paul <agent>, Kleinkind  <patient>(1) Paul <agent>, Referat <patient> 2  Experimental Triads 2.1 Example Triad:(3) LIGHT condition: Weil der Student seiner Kommilitonin vor dem Seminar eine Zusammenfassung gab, spendierte sieihm letzte Woche einen Kaffee. Because the student gave an abstract to his fellow student before class, she bought him coffee last week. (4) HEAVY condition: Weil  der Student  seiner  Kommilitonin  vor  dem   Seminar  eine Zusammenfassung  abschrieb,spendierte sie ihm letzte Woche einen Kaffee.Because the student copied an abstract to his fellow student before class, she bought him coffee last week.  (5) DARK condition: Weil der Student seiner Kommilitonin vor dem Seminar einen Kugelschreiber gab, spendierte sie ihmletzte Woche einen Kaffee.Because the student gave a pen to his fellow student before class, she bought him coffee last week.1 Contact: eva.wittenberg@aya.yale.edu, Universität Potsdam, Institut für Germanistik, Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam2 Contact: maria.pinango@yale.edu, Yale University, Dept. of Linguistics, 370 Temple St. #314, New Haven, CT 065201Proposal:Argument Sharing is the  integration of verbal predicate’s and nominal’s arguments.Hypothesis: Argument Sharing is purely semantic and strictly compositional. 2.2 Properties:‒ possibility   of   passivization,   adjectival   or   adverbial   modification,   fronting,   norestrictions in choice of article → no lexicalization or idiomization (cf. Helbig & Buscha(2001))‒ same syntax in all three conditions‒ same lexical items in all three conditions except for the critical area‒ in the LIGHT condition, Argument Sharing is triggered, whereas in the HEAVY and DARKcondition, argument structure comes from the verb alone. 3  Approach: Real-Time Comprehension 4  Preparatory Tests 4.1 Corpus Analysis (COSMAS II)– goal: prevention of frequency effects– results:– Nominals → Numerical frequency and sense frequency: MeanLIGHT/HEAVY=1441, MeanDARK=282 – Verbs → Sense frequency:MeanLIGHT= 127, MeanDARK= 20.3 – Verb-Nominal Co-occurrence frequency: MeanLVC= 51, MeanDARK/HEAVY= .02Implication: The LIGHT Condition is less costly than HEAVY or DARK, due to frequency. If the opposite was to be found, it could not be due to any frequency effect. 4.2 Isolated Reaction Time Test: Auditory Lexical Decision Task– 214 words (half of them German words, half of them possible German nonwords)– reaction time for the lexical decision was measured from onset of the word.– matching of nouns and verbs for similar isolated reaction times throughout conditions.– frequencies and reaction times did not correlate (objects: Pearson correlation = 0,116       (p= 0,321); verbs: Pearson correlation = 0,119 (p=0,311)).  5  Main Experiment: Cross-Modal Lexical Decision Task 5.1 Experimental Design:– 25 experimental triads like (3)-(5), matched with semantically unrelated probes– 175 filler sentences; 50 of them matched with semantically unrelated word probes; 125of them matched with semantically unrelated nonword probes– 20 comprehension questions (to ensure subjects' attention)– subjects: 44 German native speakers between the ages of 18 and 352Predictions:  If Argument Sharing is compositional  →   more computationally costlyIf Argument Sharing is purely semantic  →  cost is delayed– two semi-randomized scripts; six experimental lists of probe-condition matching toavoid any priming effects– Probing Comprehension: Licensing Position (°): where argument sharing is triggered.LC+300 Position (°°): where argument sharing is predicted to be fully implemented.Example:Weil der Student seiner Kommilitonin vor dem Seminar…       …eine Zusammenfassung gab ° spendierte sie ihm°°…        …eine Zusammenfassung abschrieb ° spendierte sie ihm°°…     …einen Kugelschreiber gab ° spendierte sie ihm°°……letzte Woche einen Kaffee. 6  Results:Position x Conditioninteraction was significant butonly at the LC300 for the lightcondition in the predicteddirection: LIGHTLC+300 >> LIGHTLC F(40)=6,86; pLIGHT+300=.068HEAVYLC+300 ≈ HEAVYLCF(40)=7,12; pHEAVY+300=.997DarkLC+300 ≈ DARKLCF(40)=6,61; pDARK+300=.381The effect found here is not exclusive to German. It has also been found for English(Piñango et al. (in press)).3Comparison at each probe position:Licensing Position (LC):  LIGHT = DARK = HEAVY           F(34)=11,61; pHEAVY=.654; pDARK=.698LC+ 300 msecs:  LIGHT >> DARK/HEAVYF(34)=7,15; pHEAVY=.015; pDARK=.013 Time Course of Argument Sharing680685690695700705710715720725730LIGHT HEAVY DARK LIGHT HEAVY DARKLC LC+300reaction timeconditionsResults:   Argument Sharing is costly. Cost emerges 300ms after licensing. (cf. McElree & Griffith (1998))Implication: Argument Sharing is compositional & semantic. 7  Conclusions: 8  Selected ReferencesButt, M. (2003) The Light Verb Jungle. [Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 9,1-49].Cattel, R. (1984) Composite Predicates in English. Orlando: Academic Press [Syntax and Semantics 17]. Culicover, P. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.Gallmann, P. (1999) Wortbegriff und Nomen-Verb-Verbindungen, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18/II, 269-304. Helbig, G. (1979) Probleme der Beschreibung von Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache,16, 273-285. McElree, B & Griffith, T. (1998) Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for atemporal dissociation. JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21,134-157. Pinango, M. M., Mack, J. & Jackendoff, R. (in press) Semantic Combinatorial Processes in Argument Structure:Evidence from Light-Verbs (to appear in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society).Piñango, M., Zurif, E., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). Real-time processing implications of aspectual coercion at thesyntax-semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(4), 395-414.Pustejovsky, J. (1995) The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press.Rösch, O. (1994) Untersuchungen zu passivwertigen Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen der Gegenwart. Ein Beitrag zurfunktionalen Valenzgrammatik. Hamburg: Buske [Beiträge zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft 8].Samek-Lodovici, V. (2003) The internal structure of arguments and its role in complex predicate formation.Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 835-881.Sommerfeldt, K.-E. (1980) Zur Valenz von Funktionsverbfügungen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 17, 294-7.Starke, G. (1975) Zum Einfluss von Funktionsverbfügungen auf den Satzbau im Deutschen. Deutsch alsFremdsprache, 12, 157-163.Wiese, H. (2006) „Ich mach dich Messer“: Grammatische Produktivität in Kiez-Sprache („Kanak Sprak“),Linguistische Berichte, 207, 245-273.Winhardt, H. (2002) Funktionsverbgefüge im Deutschen. Zur Verbindung von Verben und Nominalisierungen.Dissertation, Universität Tübingen.4Composite argument structure in light verb constructions results from a compositional process:Argument Sharing. Argument Sharing is an organizing principle in semantic composition.The argument structure of a nominalization is not only inherited from the verbal predicate fromwhich the nominalization is derived, it  remains fully available  for  carrying out semanticcomposition.

Ich mach dich Messer“: Grammatische Produktivität in Kiez-Sprache („Kanak Sprak“),

Probleme der Beschreibung von Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache,

Real-time processing implications of aspectual coercion at the syntax-semantics interface.

Simpler Syntax.

Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation.

The Generative Lexicon.

The internal structure of arguments and its role in complex predicate formation.

The Light Verb Jungle. [Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics,

Untersuchungen zu passivwertigen Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen der Gegenwart. Ein Beitrag zur funktionalen Valenzgrammatik. Hamburg: Buske [Beiträge zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft 8].

Wortbegriff und Nomen-Verb-Verbindungen, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft,

Zum Einfluss von Funktionsverbfügungen auf den Satzbau im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache,

Zur Valenz von Funktionsverbfügungen.

Argument structure in nominalizations : the case of the light verb construction in German

Argument structure in nominalizations : the case of the light verb construction in German

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main