Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Hypothesis
Experimental Design and Participants
Analysis of the Results
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Syntax

How Complex Verbs Acquire Their Idiosyncratic Meanings

Profile image of Sergei MonakhovSergei Monakhov

2023, Language and Speech

https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309231199994
visibility

…

description

28 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Complex verbs with the same preverb/prefix/particle that is both linguistically productive and analyzable can be compositional as well as non-compositional in meaning. For example, the English on has compositional spatial uses (put a hat on) but also a non-spatial "continuative" use, where its semantic contribution is consistent with multiple verbs (we played / worked / talked on despite the interruption). Comparable examples can be given with German preverbs or Russian prefixes, which are the main data analyzed in the present paper. The preverbs/prefixes/particles that encode noncompositional, construction-specific senses have been extensively studied; however, it is still far from clear how their semantic idiosyncrasies arise. Even when one can identify the contribution of the base, it is counterintuitive to assign the remaining sememes to the preverb/prefix/particle part. Therefore, on one hand, there seems to be an element without meaning, and on the other, there is a word sense that apparently comes from nowhere. In this article, I suggest analyzing compositional and non-compositional complex verbs as instantiations of two different types of constructions: one with an open slot for the preverb/prefix/particle and a fixed base verb and another with a fixed preverb/prefix/particle and an open slot for the base verb. Both experimental and corpus evidence supporting this decision is provided for Russian data. I argue that each construction implies its own meaning-processing model and that the actual choice between the two can be predicted by taking into account the discrepancy in probabilities of transition from preverb/prefix/particle to base and from base to preverb/prefix/particle.

Related papers

Constraints on syntactic alternation:lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model
Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza

2011

View PDFchevron_right
‘Verstehen’ (‘understand’) primes ‘stehen’ (‘stand’): Morphological structure overrides semantic compositionality in the lexical representation of German complex verbs
Katrin Preller

Journal of Memory and Language, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphological and Constructional Perspectives (review)
Rolf Theil

Language, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic and Morphological Restrictions in Experiencer Predicates *
Martha McGinnis

2012

It has long been observed that both the meaning and the form of a verb play a role in determining the syntactic configurations in which this verb is found. For example, give, but not donate or wash, is used in the double-object construction: I gave/*donated/*washed Mary a car. The contrast has been attributed in part to morphophonological properties, like the Latinate form of donate, and in part to semantic properties, like the fact that wash does not imply a transfer of possession (Oehrle 1976). In this paper, I propose that another constraint on verb distribution, the Target/Subject Matter (T/SM) restriction (Pesetsky 1995), also arises from a combination of morphological and semantic factors. I argue that semantic selectional restrictions rule out certain derivations that would give rise to a T/SM violation, while morphological selectional restrictions guide the pronunciation of the well-formed derivations. This conclusion supports the position of Distributed Morphology that sema...

View PDFchevron_right
German particle and prefix verbs at the syntax-phonology interface1 Petr Biskup Michael Putnam Laura Catharine Smith
Laura Catharine Smith

uni-leipzig.de

In this paper we provide a derivational, minimalist account of the construction of particle and prefix verbs in German. In particular, we focus on the different stress patterns associated with particle and prefix verbs and on the positioning of the bound morpheme zu 'to' in particle and prefix verbs. Building upon an earlier proposal put forward by Biskup & Putnam (2009), we assume that particle and prefix verbs are derived from similar derivational mechanisms. They differ only with respect to whether or not the p-element (i.e., preposition or particle) incorporates into the root. This distinction is the base for the different behavior of prefix and particle verbs with respect to the stress pattern and the position of the infinitival marker zu. Since German particles are prepositions that remain in situ in the prepositional phrase, they allow zu to intervene between them and the verb. For this reason, they constitute a strong prosodic word and bear the primary stress in the particle verb. In contrast, verbal prefixes are incorporated prepositions, hence zu cannot be inserted between the prefix and the verb later in the derivation. Consequently, verbal prefixes form a weak prosodic word in combination with the verb and cannot bear the primary stress pattern. Finally, in this paper we explore whether a phase-based model of syntactic theory can account for the syntax-phonology interface issues that ensue within a derivational approach to particle and prefix verb formation in German.

View PDFchevron_right
Dynamic Shift in the Verb Semantics: A Case of Some Four-Letter Verbs
Rabiaa Ibrahim

Studia Neophilologica, 2015

The traditional English verb classifi cation based upon their grammatical meaning is a certain matrix according to which new units are grouped. The present investigation is aimed at integral describing the verbs of the ‘give’ type in the model “to give a smile”. The analysis of its constituents does not give any new information, however, its analysis as an integral unit in the sentence and discourse can reveal it as a structural-semantic unity, wherein a redistribution of the lexical meaning takes place. Since Otto Jespersen defi ned them as “light verbs" they have been in the focus of research of grammarians, semanticists, discourse experts, and cognitologists. In the framework of our research the referred verbs in the given model are presented as the result of grammaticalization and lexicalization — major factors of the English language development.

View PDFchevron_right
Head-Modifier Relations in Verb-Verb Compounds: a Preliminary Typology
Alexey Vinyar

Bachelor thesis, 2018

My 2018 BA thesis devoted to the preliminary typology of Verb-Verb compounds. I study the order of semantic Heads and Modifiers in three types of verb-verb compounds which are also defined semantically. I argue that while in Mental process compounds the order of components correlates with the general branching direction of a given language, the component order in compounds involving motion verbs is determined by the distinction between Path verbs and other verbs. This thesis also contains some case studies devoted to the grammaticalization of verb-verb compounds.

View PDFchevron_right
Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination
Andrew Spencer

Linguistics, 1998

We argue that a large class of Russian prefixed verbs has essentially the same semantic structure as resultative constructions in English of the type paint the door green. We analyze both phenomena as instances of lexical subordination: although it is syntactically a secondary predicator, green expresses the primary ("core") semantic predication, while paint is a secondary subordinated semantic predicate. The expression therefore means 'cause to become green by painting. In the Russian vyteret' stol 'wipe down the table' (literally Out-wipe table'), the prefix vy-is semantically primary and the verb stem is subordinated. By virtue of this shared semantic structure, Russian prefixation can only access internal arguments (objects, or subjects of unaccusatives) and Russian prefixed verbs may support "fake" or unselected object constructions, akin to English resultatives such as drink the pub dry or sing oneself hoarse. From pisat' 'write' we have ispisat' rucku Out-write pen, 'to run out of ink (of a pen) 1 , in which the direct object 'pen is not selected by pisat' 'write'. Since these unselected objects are arguments of the prefixed verb complex, we conclude (with Goldberg 1995, against Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995) that unselected objects in English resultatives are also arguments (of the construction). We extend our analysis to the steal/rob alternation and offering an explanation of why in some languages, verbs of manner of motion (e.g. run,) behave like unergative verbs while the same verbs with directional complementsjadjuncts (e.g. run into the room) behave like unaccusative verbs. We discuss the repercussions for the interpretation of notions such as " complex predicate" and "construction."

View PDFchevron_right
Structural Ambiguities in the Light Verb Constructions: Lexical Relatedness and Divergence
Jaehyung Yang

The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal

One of the most widely used constructions in Korean is the so-called light verb construction (LVC) involving an active-denoting verbal noun (VN) together with the light verb ha-ta 'do'. This paper first discusses the argument composition of the LVC, mixed properties of VNs both of which have provided a challenge to syntactic analyses with a strict version of X-bar theory. The paper shows the mechanism of multiple classification of category types with systematic inheritance can provide an effective way of capturing these mixed properties. In particular, it assumes that VNs have both [N +] and [V +] features to reflect their dual properties. The paper also addresses the issue of relatedness and divergence between the VNs with an accusative argument and those without it. An implementation of the analysis within the LKB (Linguistics Knowledge Building) system also proves its feasibility and efficiency.

View PDFchevron_right
California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXV No. 2 Spring, 2010
Constantine L E N D Z E M O Yuka

Chomsky (1986b) employs a feature value approach in the specification of universal lexical categories ([+V, +N]). The verbal category is identified by [+V,-N] feature combination while the noun is specified by the features; [+N,-V]. The verb is a universal category with categorical features that are in direct opposition to the categorical features of the noun. The verb is therefore understood to be exclusively verbal; void of any nominal traits just as the noun is unambiguously nominal without any verbal traits. Interestingly, evidence from our data show that the feature specification of the Edo verb does not conform to Chomsky's universal categorical distinction. We show in this paper that the Edo verb is a complex component consisting of a combination of lexical units with categorial and semantic features that complement each other to represent a single semantic verbal element. These lexical units sometimes introduce features that contrast with the standard specification of verbal features, yet

View PDFchevron_right

References (67)

  1. Amiot, D. (2004). Between compounding and derivation: Elements of word-formation corresponding to prepositions. In W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. E. Pfeiffer, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 183-213). John Benjamin.
  2. Bannard, C. (2005). Learning about the meaning of verb-particle constructions from corpora. Computer Speech and Language, 19(4), 467-478.
  3. Bergsma, S., Bhargava, A., He, H., & Kondrak, G. (2010). Predicting the semantic compositionality of prefix verbs. In H. Li & L. Márquez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2010 conference on empirical methods in natu- ral language processing (pp. 293-303). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. Biskup, P. (2015). On (non-)compositionality of prefixed verbs. In M. Ziková, P. Caha, & M. Dočekal (Eds.), Slavic languages in the perspective of formal grammar: Proceedings of FDSL 10.5, Brno 2014 (pp. 59-78). Peter Lang.
  5. Biskup, P. (2019). Prepositions, case and verbal prefixes. The case of Slavic. John Benjamins. Blom, C. (2005). Complex predicates in Dutch. LOT.
  6. Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2017). Enriching word vectors with subword informa- tion [arXiv:1607.04606v2]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.04606
  7. Boleda, G. (2020). Distributional semantics and linguistic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 213-234.
  8. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4, 543-555.
  9. Booij, G., & Van Kemenade, A. (2003). Preverbs: An introduction. In: G. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2003 (pp. 1-11). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020- 1513-7_1
  10. Bott, S., & Schulte im Walde, S. (2014). Optimizing a distributional semantic model for the prediction of German particle verb compositionality. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation LREC,' 14(LREC'14), 509-516.
  11. Brems, L. (2003). Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 82(2), 283-312.
  12. Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
  13. Cappelle, B. (2005). Particle patterns in English [PhD dissertation, University of Leuven]. https://kulak. kuleuven.be/nl/onderzoek/Onderzoeksdomeinen/language-literature-translation/letteren/onderzoektaal- kunde/fest/descriptiveenglishgrammar/bert-cappelle/bert-cappelle-proefschrift.pdf
  14. Cordeiro, S., Villavicencio, A., Idiart, M., & Ramisch, C. (2019). Unsupervised compositionality prediction of nominal compounds. Computational Linguistics, 45(1), 1-57.
  15. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
  16. Cuzzolin, P. L., Putzu, I., & Ramat, P. (2006). The Indo-European adverb in diachronic and typological per- spective. Indogermanische Forschungen, 111, 1-38.
  17. Dehé, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A., & Urban, S. (Eds.). (2002). Verb-particle explorations. Mouton de Gruyter.
  18. Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press.
  19. Drozd, A., Gladkova, A., & Matsuoka, S. (2016). Word embeddings, analogies, and machine learning: Beyond king-man + woman = queen. In Y. Matsumoto & R. Prasad (Eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th international conference on computational linguistics: Technical papers (pp. 3519-3530). The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee.
  20. Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955. In J. R. Firth (Ed.), Studies in linguistic analy- sis (pp. 1-32). Blackwell.
  21. Fontanals, J. M. (2001). Preverbs in complex denominal verbs: Lexical adjuncts or core predicates? Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 37-51.
  22. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
  23. Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on "alternations." International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97-129.
  24. Gutierrez, E. D., Shutova, E., Marghetis, T., & Bergen, B. (2016). Literal and metaphorical senses in com- positional distributional semantic models. In K. Erk & N. A. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 54th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 183-193). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. Hamilton, W. L., Leskovec, J., & Jurafsky, D. (2016). Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. In K. Erk & N. A. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 54th annual meeting of the associa- tion for computational linguistics (pp. 1489-1501). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  26. Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39(6), 1041-1070.
  27. Hay, J. (2003). Causes and consequences of word structure. Routledge.
  28. Hvitfeldt, E., & Silge, J. (2022). Supervised machine learning for text analysis in R. CRC Press.
  29. Iacobini, C. (2009). Phrasal verbs between syntax and lexicon. Rivista di Linguistica, 21(1), 97-117.
  30. Iacobini, C., & Masini, F. (2007). Verb-particle constructions and prefixed verbs in Italian: Typology, dia- chrony and semantics. In G. Booij, L. Ducceschi, B. Fradin, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, & S. Scalise (Eds.), On-line proceedings of the fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5), Fréjus, 15-18 September 2005 (pp. 157-184), University of Bologna.
  31. Jackendoff, R. (2002). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp. 67-94). Mouton de Gruyter.
  32. Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2013). The TenTen corpus family. In A. Hardie & R. Love (Eds.), 7th international corpus linguistics conference CL. Abstract book (pp. 125-127). UCREL.
  33. Köper, M., Scheible, C., Schulte im Walde, S. (2015). Multilingual reliability and "semantic" structure of continuous word spaces. In M. Purver, M. Sadrzadeh, & M. Stone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th inter- national conference on computational semantics (pp. 40-45). Queen Mary University of London.
  34. Köper, M., Schulte im Walde, S. (2016). Distinguishing literal and non-literal usage of German particle verbs. In M. Carpuat, M.-C. de Marneffe, & I. Vladimir Meza Ruiz (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies (pp. 353-362). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  35. Krongauz, M. A. (1998). Pristavki i glagoly v russkom jazyke: Semantičeskaja grammatika [Prefixes and verbs in Russian language: Semantic grammar]. Škola -«Jazyki russkoj kuľtury».
  36. Kühnhold, I., & Wellmann, H. (1973). Deutsche Wortbildungstypen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache, 1 Teil: das Verb [German word formation types and tendencies in contemporary language. Part 1: The verb]. Pädagogischer Verlag Schwamm.
  37. Kutuzov, A., & Kuzmenko, E. (2017). WebVectors: A toolkit for building web interfaces for vector seman- tic models. In D. I. Ignatov, M. Y. Khachay, V. G. Labunets, N. Loukachevitch, S. I. Nikolenko, A. Panchenko, A. V. Savchenko, & K. Vorontsov (Eds.), Analysis of images, social networks and texts, AIST 2016: Vol. 661. Communications in computer and information science (pp. 155-161). Springer.
  38. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. I). Stanford University Press.
  39. Larsen, D. (2014). Particles and particle-verb constructions in English and other Germanic languages [Dissertation, University of Delaware]. https://udspace.udel.edu/items/f2323297-1eb7-46e1-8e3c-f540aa6c66d9
  40. Laudanna, A. (1999). Regular versus irregular inflection: A question of levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(6), 1028-1029.
  41. Levy, O., & Goldberg, Y. (2014). Dependency-based word embeddings. In K. Toutanova & H. Wu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 2: Short papers) (pp. 302-308). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/P14-2050
  42. Lin, C.-C., Ammar, W., Dyer, C., & Levin, L. (2015). Unsupervised POS induction with word embeddings. In R. Mihalcea, J. Chai, & A. Sarkar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies (pp. 1311-1316). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  43. McIntyre, A. (2001). Argument blockages induced by verb particles in English and German: Event modifi- cation and secondary predication. In N. Dehé & A. Wanner (Eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs (pp. 131-164). Germanistik Online Datenbank. https://www.degruyter.com/database/ GERMANISTIK/entry/ogerm.ga02144014_3/html
  44. McIntyre, A. (2002). Idiosyncrasy in particle verbs. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp. 95-118). Mouton de Gruyter.
  45. McIntyre, A. (2007). Particle verbs and argument structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(4), 350-367.
  46. McIntyre, A. (2015). Denominal verbs: An overview. In S. Olsen, P. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (pp. 434-450). Mouton de Gruyter.
  47. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013, May 2-4). Efficient estimation of word representa- tions in vector space [Conference session]. Workshop Track Proceedings: 1st International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013, Scottsdale, AZ, United States. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781
  48. Monakhov, S. (2021). Russian prefixed verbs as constructional schemas. Russian Linguistics, 45, 45-73.
  49. Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014). GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In A. Moschitti, B. Pang, & W. Daelemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1532-1543). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  50. Petre, P., & Cuyckens, H. (2008). Bedusted, yet not beheaded: The role of be-'s constructional properties in its conservation. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 133-169). Mouton de Gruyter.
  51. Rehurek, R., & Sojka, P. (2011). Gensim-Python framework for vector space modeling. NLP Centre, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, 3(2), 2.
  52. Rousseau, A. (Ed.). (1995). Les préverbes dans les langues d'Europe: Introduction à l'étude de la préver- bation [Preverbs in the languages of Europe: Introduction to the study of preverbation]. Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
  53. Rychlý, P. (2008). A lexicographer-friendly association score. In P. Sojka & A. Horák (Eds.), Proceedings of recent advances in slavonic natural language processing, RASLAN2008 (pp. 6-9). Masaryk University.
  54. Schlechtweg, D., Eckmann, S., Santus, E., Schulte im Walde, S., & Hole, D. (2017). German in flux: Detecting metaphoric change via word entropy. In R. Levy & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st conference on computational natural language learning (pp. 354-367). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  55. Shvedova, N. (Ed.). (1980). Russkaya Grammatika [Russian grammar].
  56. Nauka.
  57. Spencer, A., & Zaretskaya, M. (1998). Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination. Linguistics, 36, 1-40.
  58. Stiebels, B. (1996). Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag von verbalen Präfixen und Partikeln [Lexical arguments and adjuncts: On the semantic contribution of verbal prefixes and particles]. Akademie Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050072319
  59. Stiebels, B. (1998). Complex denominal verbs in German and the morphology-semantics interface. In G. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997 (pp. 265-302). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-011-4998-3_10
  60. Taylor, J. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford University Press.
  61. Tikhonov, A. (1985). Slovoobrazovatel'ny slovar russkogo jazyka [Word-formation dictionary of Russian language].
  62. Russkij Jazyk.
  63. Turney, P. D., Neuman, Y., Assaf, D., & Cohen, Y. (2011). Literal and metaphorical sense identification through concrete and abstract context. In R. Barzilay & M. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the confer- ence on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 680-690). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  64. Turney, P. D., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141-188.
  65. Vincent, N. (1999). The evolution of C-structure: Prepositions and PPs from Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics, 37(6), 1111-1153.
  66. Wang, S., Durrett, G., & Erk, K. (2018). Modeling semantic plausibility by injecting world knowledge. In M. Walker, H. Ji, & A. Stent (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 303-308). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  67. Zeller, J. (2001). Particle verbs and local domains. John Benjamins.

Related papers

Title: Verbal prefixation, construction grammar, and semantic compatibility: Evidence from the locative alternation in Polish
Wojciech Lewandowski

This paper aims to analyze the interaction between prefixes, verbs, and abstract argument structure constructions, using as a testing ground the locative alternation. It has been assumed that in order to participate in the locative alternation, a verb must specify a manner of motion from which a change of state can be obtained (see Pinker 1989). However, this generalization does not take into account the argument structure effects involved in verbal prefixation in Slavic where some change-of-location verbs can appear in the change-of-state variant, when headed by a resultative prefix. In Olbishevska's (2005) generative-derivational analysis of the locative alternation in Russian, it is claimed that resultative prefixes are derivational morphemes subcategorizing for a location argument. While I agree that it is the resultative prefix that makes the alternation possible, I propose that it is not the case that a new verb with a different argument structure is derived by means of prefixation, but rather that it is the verb that integrates into the prefixed change-of-state variant. I analyze the change-of-state variant in the spirit of Goldberg's (1995, 2002) Construction Grammar and Langacker's (1987, 1991, 2008) Cognitive Grammar approach and show that resultative prefixes are not abstract syntactic features, but rather that each prefixed change-of-state construction is based on a specific configuration between the locatum and the location. I demonstrate that the interaction between resultative prefixes, alternating verbs, and the more abstract change-of-state variant is driven by semantic coherence.

View PDFchevron_right
On (Non-)Compositionality of Prefixed Verbs
Petr Biskup

This paper deals with differences between compositional and non-compositional prefixed verbs in Slavic. Using a paraphrase test, it classifies prefixed verbs into four categories. In the course of this, it is shown that non-compositional prefixed verbs do not form a unified class. The paper provides a syntactic and semantic analysis of the particular classes and argues that also prefixed verbs with an idiomatic meaning can receive a compositional analysis. Non-compositional prefixed verbs are incrementally derived but the meaning of their parts can be updated under certain circumstances.

View PDFchevron_right
Topological vs. lexical determination in English particle verbs (PVs)
Renata Geld

Language Value

The central aim of this work is to describe semantic determination, i.e., topological vs. lexical determination, by investigating aspects of construal (Langacker 1987) in English PVs with in and out. The paper focuses on L2 processing related to what we might call strategic thinking about linguistic meaning. More specifically, it attempts to demonstrate the following: a) how the nature of verbs affects the overall semantic determination of particle verb constructions, and b) if/how the users of English make sense of particle verbs, and how much they rely on topological/grammatical components in the process of constructing meaning. The results suggest that the nature of verbs does affect the users' strategic meaning construal-it differs in terms of their tendency towards one of the following types of semantic determination: a) topological, b) lexical, and, c) compositional.

View PDFchevron_right
When Verbs Share Their Power: The Case of the German Light Verb Construction
Maria M . Piñango

uni-potsdam.de

View PDFchevron_right
EXPLORING THE LEXICAL REPRESENTATION OF ENGLISH PARTICLES IN THE LEXICAL-CONSTRUCTIONAL MODEL
Ignasi Navarro i Ferrando

Cognitive Linguistics between Universality and Variation, 2012

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Construction Grammar
  • Russian Language
  • Verb-Particle Constructions
  • Distributional Semantics
  • Construction Morphology
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved