On Russian multiplicative verbs (a pilot study)

This report describes a logic grammar formalism, Modular Logic Grammars, exhibiting a high degree of modularity between syntax and semantics. There is a syntax rule compiler (compiling into Prolog) which takes care of the building of analysis structures and the interface to a clearly separated semantic interpretation component dealing with scoping and the construction of logical forms. The whole system can work in either a one-pass mode or a two-pass mode. In the one-pass mode, logical forms are built directly during parsing through interleaved calls to semantics, added automatically by the rule compiler. In the two-pass mode, syntactic analysis trees are built automatically in the first pass, and then given to the (one-pass) semantic component. The grammar formalism includes two devices which cause the automatically built syntactic structures to differ from derivation trees in two ways: (1) There is a shift operator, for dealing with left-embedding constructions such as English possessive noun phrases while using right-recursive rules (which are appropriate for Prolog parsing). (2) There is a distinction in the syntactic formalism between strong non-terminals and weak non-terminals, which is important for distinguishing major levels of grammar.

This paper examines the role of force dynamics and intentionality in the description of placement events by two groups of native speakers of typologically and genetically different languages, Danish and Spanish, and by two groups of intermediate adult learners, Danish learners of L2 Spanish and Spanish learners of L2 Danish. The results of the study showed that (a) force dynamics and intentionality are important semantic components in both languages, but their distribution and relative focus differed cross-linguistically, and (b) the two learner groups had difficulties in reconstructing the meanings of the L2 verbs involving these two semantic components. Learning difficulties were observed when moving from a less to a more complex L2 system, when moving in the opposite direction, i.e., from a more to a less complex L2 system and when moving to an L2 system that is as complex as the learners native one.

NOMINALIZATIONS IN ENGLISH have received much attention from transformational grammarians.' In recent years, the correct description of a particular type of English nominalization, known as the DERIVED NOMINAL, has been an issue in the controversy between interpretive semantics and generative semantics. The claim has been made in support of interpretive semantics that verbs derived transformationally from other verbs do not have corresponding derived nominals. I will show that for the class of causative verbs this claim is wrong. Interpretive semantics is a variant of the transformational theory of grammar developed by Noam Chomsky and bthers.2 It emphasizes the role of phrase structure rules and rules of semantic interpretation that apply to pairs of deep and surface phrase markers, and it reduces the role of transformations in grammatical descriptions.3 Generative semantics derives from the same transformational theory, but has rejected phrase structure rules, rules of semantic interpretation like those mentioned above, and the concept of deep structure as that point separating the syntactic and semantic components of the grammar, where all lexical items are inserted. No distinction between syntactic and semantic components is made in generative semantics, and lexical insertion is not restricted to one point in the grammar.4 Chomsky, who has been one of the foremost proponents of interpretive semantics, has claimed that derived nominals like its growth and their arrival constitute a part of English grammar that cannot be described transformationally.5 He supports this claim by contrasting such derived nominals

Abstract-earhas become a highly productive option in denominal verb formation in Spanish. The unparalleled productivity and range of verb classes obtained invites us to revisit fundamental questions on verb formation and interpretation: e.g., which domain (lexical/syntactic/semantic) primarily drives and constrains denominal verb use and interpretation, which verb types are possible, whether or not acanonical use constraintcan correctly predict and capture the role of the root in verb meaning, as assumed in mainstream accounts. Based on analytical and (preliminary) experimental data, we consider syntactic and semantic (aspectual) behavior of denominal verbs, including both traditional and novel verbs with -ear. We observe that: (i) productive types include verb classes untapped in the existent literature; (ii) the range of verb classes obtained coincides with a significant range of possible interpretations and uses, suggesting that a ‘same’ verb (lexical and morphotactic composition) can be associated with distinct structural configurations; (iii) the interpretation is highly sensitive to the grammatical context. We argue that (i) verb meaning and behavior are not deterministically driven by one (e.g., lexical/conceptual) domain but rather in interaction; (ii) syntax plays a nontrivial role in verb meaning/interpretation; (iii) non-univocity arises as a distinctive property ofearverbs.

This article analyzes the functioning of the so-called adverbial verbs (otherwise named verbs of manner). Their distinctive feature is that they express not only an action or process, but also the manner in which it is carried out. The English language is rich in such resources, and the researcher’s task is to study the functional (pragmasemantic) properties of adverbial verbs and analyze their role in building up a compact yet capacious semantic space of English business discourse. Methods of functional-semantic, pragmatic analyses, and classification are relevant for the purpose of disclosing the semantics and functional properties of the said verbs. The study is conducted within the framework of English business discourse. The characteristics of adverbial verbs are considered in the context of linguistic economy, functional synergy, and the diversity of adverbial verb types based on semantic criteria. The authors conclude that English adverbial verbs belong to a category of linguistic devices that allow for the expression of fairly extensive content in relatively concise forms. This characteristic is based on the verbs’ ability to actualize the functional synergy, that is, to generate semantic increments that arise through contextual interaction with other elements of the semantic system and exceed the simple sum of their semantic components. Since business people always strive for saving time and money, mastering this category of linguistic devices is entirely appropriate for their purposes. Using English business discourse as a basis, this article suggests a classification of adverbial verbs based on semantic criteria. The following groups of verbs are identified: a) verbs of spatial movement; b) causative verbs; c) verbs characterizing speech; d) verbs expressing direct impact on an object. In conclusion, prospects for further development of this topic are outlined, such as the study of contextually generated adverbial properties in verbs not originally classified as adverbial, as well as the development of practical aspects of using these tools to enhance the communicative competence of future business representatives.

Syntactic ellipsis is the nonexpression of a word or phrase that is, nevertheless, expected to occupy a place in the syntactic structure of a sentence. For example, in Mary got an A on the math test and Louise(?) a B, the verb ‘got’ in the second conjunct is elided.1 Although for many linguists syntactic ellipsis has come to represent the de fault interpretation of the term “ellipsis,” ellipsis is actually a much broader phenomenon whose many aspects vie for immediate attention, particularly in the realm of natural language processing (NLP). For example, semantic ellipsis-the nonexpression of elements that, while crucial for a full semantic interpretation, are not signaled by a syntactic gap-occurs in/ forgot my keys and He is reading Tolstoy, since the meanings are actually “I forgot to take/bring my keys” and “He is reading a book written by Tolstoy.” The fact that a component of semantics is, in fact, missing in sentences like these can be detected, among other ways, by cross-linguistic comparison: in Chinese, for example, one cannot use the elliptical read an author.

The distinction between manner and result verbs arises from the event structure approach to verb meaning. In this approach verb meaning consists of two parts, a structural component that includes a small number of primitive predicates indicating event types, and a root component that describes idiosyncratic actions and states. Manner verbs describe actions but not the end results; they have a simple event structure. By contrast, result verbs describe the end results but not the way actions are carried out; they have a complex event structure. The distinction plays an important role in argument realization and constraints on possible verb meanings. It is also related to an issue that has been controversial in the study of Chinese verbs—whether there are simple accomplishments in Chinese. On the basis of Beavers and Koontz-Garboden’s diagnostics for manner and result verbs in English, five tests are suggested for Mandarin Chinese (henceforth Chinese) verbs. Two tests concern result: (a) result cannot be denied; (b) in forming resultative verb compounds the second verb and the object are restricted. Three tests identify manner verbs: (a) subject cannot be nonhuman, (b) action cannot be denied, (c) action has duration. Relying on the five tests, dynamic simple verbs in Chinese are classified into three groups—manner, result, and manner + result. Result verbs include verbs of damage, for example, duan ‘cut off’ and hui ‘destroy’; manner verbs include the verb of killing sha ‘kill’, de-adjectival degree achievement verbs, for example, re ‘heat up’, verbs of cooking, for example, kao ‘bake’; and one verb is found to lexicalize both manner and result—mie ‘put out, extinguish’. The verb of killing sha ‘kill, do killing’ is examined in detail, as its status has remained unresolved in the literature. It is found that sha entails change but not culminating change; morphosyntactically it patterns like manner verbs, hence its manner status. In terms of the affectedness hierarchy, the cutoff between result and manner is between verbs of quantized change and non-quantized change. The grammatical relevance of the verb classification can be seen in argument realization. Manner verbs takes more than one type of object, whereas result verbs only take one type of object, where the patient undergoes scalar change. In argument alternation, result verbs, but not manner or manner + result verbs, participate in causative alternation, and only manner verbs allow object alternations. This data suggests that Chinese does have simple accomplishments.

In Turkish, transitivity is defined according to both syntactic and semantic criteria. However, the types of transitional verbs and sentences, determined by the semantic and syntactic criteria, often contradict each other. Sometimes, a verb or sentence which meets the semantic condition may not satisfy the syntactic or vice versa. There are two reasons cause this contradiction. The first is due to the reason for adherence of transitivity to strict syntactic qualification and not taking the specific encoding situation of prototype transitivity [NOM-ACC] into account or ignoring the frames out of valency-related verb-meaning codification. The second is the restraint of transitivity in prototype transitivity as a rigid semantic concept. However, transitivity is a gradual and multifactorial concept. Therefore, it is not possible to talk about a single transitivity, hence a single verb type and a single case frame in which transitivity is encoded. There are different degrees of transitivity, and they can be labeled in the range of high degree to low degree transitivity. The degrees of transitivity in Turkish are formally coded up to a point with different case frames. It has been investigated which phases of transitivity in Turkish and how far different degrees of transitivity can be coded with variable case frames in this work. Turkish transitive verb hierarchy and related classes are proposed based on semantic and syntactic parameters. The transitivity scale of Turkish and the semantic map of verb classes will be formed as the final stage of this study.

Nearly two thousand perfective verbs in Russian are formed via the addition of so-called “empty prefixes” (čistovidovye pristavki) to imperfective base verbs. The traditional assumption that prefixes are semantically “empty” when used to form aspectual pairs is problematic because the same prefixes are clearly “non-empty” when combined with other base verbs. Though some scholars have suspected that the prefixes are not empty but instead have meanings that overlap with the meanings of the base verbs, proof of this hypothesis has eluded researchers. With the advent of corpora and electronic resources it is possible to explore this question on the basis of large quantities of data. This article presents a new methodology, called “radial category profiling”, in which the semantic network of a prefix is established on the basis of its “non-empty” uses and then compared, node by node, with the semantic network of base verbs that use the same prefix as an “empty” perfectivizing morpheme. This methodology facilitates a comprehensive analysis of ten prefixes, comparing their meanings in “non-empty” and “empty” uses and showing precisely how in the latter case overlap produces the illusion of emptiness. We are able to fully specify the semantic network of each prefix, and discover that for some prefixes there is overlap throughout the network, while for others overlap is restricted to a contiguous subsection of the network. We investigate the dynamic interactions among prefixes, and identify what meanings are incompatible with the “purely aspectual” function of the so-called “empty” prefixes. The results of our analyses, including complete lists of verbs, are publicly available at: http://emptyprefixes.uit.no/ and http://emptyprefixes.uit.no/methodology_eng.htm.

Reviewed by: Argument realization Artemis Alexiadou Argument realization. By Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. 286. ISBN 0521663768. &dollar37.99. Verbs as argument-taking elements show a very complex set of properties, as the examples in 1 illustrate. While the participants in the events described in 1a and 1b are expressed in a parallel fashion, break and hit show divergent behavior in 1c and 1d. (1) a. Jane broke the vase. b. Carla hit the door. c. The vase broke. d. *The door hit. Patterns like this form the core of the area of argument realization, that is, the study of the possible expressions of the arguments of a verb. Ever since Fillmore 1970, it has been known that verbs like break and hit are representatives of a larger set of verbs. Studies on the theory of argument realization aim at identifying the factors that underlie patterns such as these, and researchers have followed a number of different paths in an attempt to find an answer to account for the divergent behavior of the different verb classes. Some have focused more on the contribution of lexical meaning, others on the impact of the syntactic constructions verbs appear in. All of the above issues (and many more) are addressed in Argument realization, the most comprehensive study to date of the relationship between verbs and their arguments. Two main aspects make this book invaluable. The first one is that Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav succeed extremely well in providing an excellent overview of the rich literature on the subject matter. The second one, and in my view the more important one, is that they provide a bridge between lexical semantics and syntactic research, putting together the results of work from a variety of fields and in a variety of theoretical frameworks. By doing this, the authors have produced a reference book for all issues concerning argument realization that nevertheless shows very clearly (i) where the differences lie between the various approaches, (ii) the different predictions these make, and (iii) how different insights can be combined with one another in order to determine the grammatically relevant aspects of verb meaning. Because of this, the book is rich in information and covers a lot of territory, without, however, leaving the reader scattered. One does not find omissions or oversimplifications. The authors provide useful bibliographic references, which help students and researchers to deepen their knowledge on the specific issues discussed in the survey. The book is an achievement of true scholarship and a priceless contribution to the study of the subject matter. The book contains seven chapters, an introduction, and a postscript. The introduction formulates the questions that any theory of argument realization has to address. L&RH state their aim in concrete terms: this book attempts to provide a synthesis and evaluation of the results of both syntactically oriented approaches and approaches developed within lexical semantics. From then on the whole exposition is directed toward one of the main conclusions, which is emphasized again in the postscript, namely that if we want to understand how verbal behavior works, we have to consider both the idiosyncratic element of verb meaning, the root, and the constructions in which this root appears. Ch. 1 offers the descriptive generalizations that emerge from investigations of argument realization, as well as the methodological issues that arise. The chapter offers the background for what is to follow. Here it becomes clear that, in attempting to locate the grammatically relevant aspects of verb meaning, studying a variety of languages and constructions is necessary. Ch. 2 discusses semantic-role lists. The chapter is more concerned with specifying the problems faced by representations of lexical semantics that take the form of semantic-role lists and it reviews attempts to overcome these problems. Semantic-role lists have the form illustrated in 2, based on Fillmore's (1970) proposal that the difference between hit and break verbs, observed in 1, relate to the different semantic-role lists associated with each verb class. (2) a. break: agent, instrument, object b. hit: agent, instrument, place [End Page 649] For a given verb, the choice of subject and object depends on its...

Remarks on causative verbs and object deletion in English

Para el estudio de la interacción entre léxico verbal y sintaxis se propone una aproximación basada en Corpus, utilizando los datos provisionales del proyecto ADESSE. El examen de los datos muestra la alta flexibilidad sintáctica de cualquier verbo, pero también cómo cada verbo o cada clase semántica de verbos tiende a organizarse siguiendo un conjunto más o menos limitado de patrones sintácticos más frecuentes. Tomando como ejemplo las principales variaciones construccionales de los verbos de percepción del español, se muestra cómo los esquemas sintácticos más frecuentes con los verbos de percepción representan asociaciones semánticamente coherentes entre el significado del verbo y el significado del esquema, cómo los esquemas alternantes proporcionan conceptualizaciones alternativas de situaciones similares, y cómo los verbos más frecuentes con un esquema sintáctico sirven de modelo o punto de atracción para la producción o interpretación de construcciones similares con otros verbos.