Verbs describing routines facilitate object omission in English
2020, Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America
https://doi.org/10.3765/PLSA.V5I1.4663Abstract
Which normally-transitive English verbs can omit their objects (I ate), and why? This paper explores three factors that have been suggested to facilitate object omission: (i) how strongly a verb selects its object (Resnik 1993); (ii) a verb's frequency (Goldberg 2005); (iii) the extent to which the verb is associated with a routine-a recognized, conventional series of actions within a community (Levin & Rapaport Hovav 2014; Martí 2015). To operationalize (iii), this paper leverages the assumption that a given verb may be more strongly associated with a routine in one community than another. Comparing writings across communities, this paper offers corpus and experimental evidence that verbs omit their objects more readily in the communities where they are more strongly associated with a routine. Object-omitting uses of verbs are analyzed, following other work, as intransitive aspectual activities describing an agent's routine actions; so the hearer's task is not to recover a missing object, but to recognize the routine described by the verb. More broadly, the paper explores how the meaning and syntactic potential of verbs are shaped by the practices of the people who use them.
References (29)
- Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
- Condoravdi, Cleo & Jean Mark Gawron. 1996. The context-dependency of implicit arguments. In Makoto Kanazawa, Christopher Piñón & Henriëtte de Swart (eds.), Quantifiers, deduc- tion, and context, Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications.
- Cote, Sharon Ann. 1996. Grammatical and discourse properties of null arguments in english. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
- Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 81-95. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199246270.003.0006.
- Fellbaum, Christiane & Judy Kegl. 1989. Taxonomic structures and cross-category linking in the lexicon. In Ken deJong & Yongkyoon No (eds.), Eastern States Conference on Linguis- tics, vol. 6, 93-104. Department of Linguistics at The Ohio State University.
- Fillmore, Charles. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 12, 95-107. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866.
- Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the origin and development of language and speech, vol. 280 1, 20-32.
- Fodor, Jerry A. & Janet Dean Fodor. 1980. Functional structure, quantifiers, and meaning pos- tulates. Linguistic Inquiry 11(4). 759-770.
- Gardner, Matt, Joel Grus, Mark Neumann, Oyvind Tafjord, Pradeep Dasigi, Nelson Liu, Matthew Peters, Michael Schmitz & Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. AllenNLP: A deep semantic natural language processing platform. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w18-2501.
- Gillon, Brendan S. 2012. Implicit complements: A dilemma for model theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 35(4). 313-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9120-2.
- Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Constructions, lexical semantics, and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of ar- guments. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, 215-236. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.001.0001.
- He, Luheng, Kenton Lee, Mike Lewis & Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. Deep semantic role label- ing: What works and what's next. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p17-1044.
- Honnibal, Matthew & Mark Johnson. 2015. An improved non-monotonic transition system for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1373-1378. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/d15-1162.
- Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Lan- guage 56(2). 251-299. https://doi.org/10.2307/413757.
- Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Levin, Beth & Malka Rapaport Hovav. 2014. Manner and result: A view from 'clean'. In Rob Pensalfini, Myfany Turpin & Diana Guillemin (eds.), Language description informed by theory, 337-357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.147.14lev.
- Martí, Luisa. 2015. Grammar versus pragmatics: Carving nature at the joints. Mind & Lan- guage 30(4). 437-473. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12086.
- Miller, George, Christiane Fellbaum, Judy Kegl & Katherine Miller. 1988. WordNet: An elec- tronic lexical reference system based on theories of lexical memory. Revue quebecoise de linguistique 17(2). 181-212. https://doi.org/10.7202/602632ar.
- Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4). 847-894. https://doi.org/10.2307/413800.
- Mittwoch, Anita. 2005. Unspecified arguments in episodic and habitual sentences. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriv- ing thematic and aspectual interpretation, 237-254. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0011.
- Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal structure of events. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 13-42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.110.03hov.
- Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97-134. CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications, Stanford.
- Resnik, Philip. 1993. Selection and information: A class-based approach to lexical relation- ships: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
- Resnik, Philip. 1996. Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computa- tional realization. Cognition 61. 127-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00722-6.
- Rice, Sally. 1988. Unlikely lexical entries. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 14, 202-212. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1797.
- Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2004. The interaction of valence and information structure. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.
- Schank, Roger C. & Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An in- quiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781036.
- Wilcoxon, Frank. 1945. Individual comparison by ranking methods. Biometrics 1. 80-83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968.