West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

When a deverbal noun is really derived from a Verb : Insights from zero-nouns Iordăchioaia, Gianina 2020-03-06

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
73804-Iordachioaia_G_Deverbal_WCCFL38_2020_slides.pdf [ 474kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 73804-1.0389859.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389859-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389859-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389859-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389859-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389859-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389859-source.json
Full Text
73804-1.0389859-fulltext.txt
Citation
73804-1.0389859.ris

Full Text

When a deverbal noun is really derived from a verb: Insights from zero-nouns Gianina IordăchioaiaUniversity of StuttgartWCCFL 38, UBC, March 6-8, 2020Semantic criteria for lexical categories: Vs vs. Ns• “Lexical categories express what can loosely be called semantic content, whereas functional categories […] express semantic operators or can even be semantically empty” [Baker & Croft 2017]• Conceptual definitions of nouns as referring to entities/things and verbs referring to events/actions are challenged by lexical action nouns (cf. Huyghe et al 2017): (1) The event/trip/incident occurred/happened/took place at midnight.• Distribution is crucial: Hopper & Thompson (1985): “linguistic forms actually lack categoriality unless it is forced on them by their discourse functions”• Von Fintel & Matthewson (2008): there is no core semantics in lexical categories!2Distributional characterization of Vs and Ns• Relational nature of verbs (vs. nouns): Baker (2003): Vs take a specifier vs. Ns beara referential index (see [+V]/[+N] in Chomsky 1970; Grimm & McNally 2013)• Grimshaw (1990): argument structure (AS) indicates internal verbal properties in deverbal nominals: mixed categories in ASNs in (2a) vs. SENs/RNs in (2b)/(2c):(2) a. The instructor’s (intentional) examination of the papers took a long time. (AS Nominal)b. The instructor’s (*intentional) examination took a long time. (Simple Event Nominal)c. The instructor’s examination/exam (*of the papers) is on the table. (Result Nominal)• Syntactic accounts of ASNs vs. SENs/RNs (DM, XSM): vP-structure in ASNs:(3) a. [nP -ation [√EXAMIN] ] (simple nominal structure: RN/SEN)b. [nP -ation  (Ext-vP)  [vP v [√EXAMIN] ] ]   (mixed N-V structure: ASN)3Deverbal zero-derived nouns (ZNs)• In the absence of a nominalizer, ZNs are analyzed as root-derived simple nouns:(4) a. [DP [C=N   √WALK]] vs. [TP [C=V   √WALK]] (XSM, Borer 2013)b. [nP Ø [√WALK] ]  or [nP Ø [vP Ø [√WALK] ] ]         (DM-style)• Borer predicts no mixed categories in ZNs (no zero suffixes & no lexical categories)• How can we tell if a ZN may include some vP structure or not?• Distributional evidence (i.e., argument realization with genitives) is multiply ambiguous in nominals (see the instructor‘s in (2))• A complementary semantic criterion would be welcome!4Contribution of this talk• Combine semantic insights on the verbal lexical category with distributional evidence from argument realization to test mixed categories in ZNs• Koontz-Garboden et al (2019): cross-linguistically, state roots use the verb category to lexicalize change of state semantics: e.g., red – to redden➢To the extent that such ZNs encode change of state meaning, they should include a vP (or more) and, implicitly, realize argument structure➢Compare ZNs based on two types of state roots: Beavers & Koontz-Garboden‘s result roots (e.g., burn) and psychological property concept roots (e.g., anger) ➢Although both roots lexicalize verbs and nouns, only result roots yield ZNs with internal verbal structure (i.e., derived from a vP)5Road map1. Previous insights on zero-derived nominals2. Change of state semantics lexicalized by verbs3. ZNs built on result roots4. ZNs built on psych property concepts 5. Conclusions6Zero-derived nominals: Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2013) • ZNs are assumed to be entirely faithful to the root they are built on• Levin (1993), Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2013) use the interpretation of ZNs to determine whether the verb is derived from a manner or result root:• Manner Vs describe events: run, walk, play, wipe, sweep• Result Vs encode result states, besides events: break, destroy, clean• e.g., touch, hit, wipe, kick build event ZNs   => manner verbs/roots break, cut, crack, split build result ZNs => result verbs/roots➢This observation is compatible with a root-derived analysis of ZNs, in the absence of any verbal structure7Zero-derived nominals: Borer (2013)• ZNs do not realize argument structure (vs. suffixed ASNs; Grimshaw 1990):(5)  a. the importation/*import of goods from China in order to bypass regulations b. the salutation/saluting/*salute of the officers by the subordinates• ZNs cannot be derived from verbs with overt suffixes:(6) to acid-ify – *the acid-ify-ØNto crystal(l)-ize – *the crystal(l)-ize-ØN➢ZNs are root-derived and include no verbal structure8Some challenges• Some ZNs allow argument structure (Newmeyer 2009; Harley 2009; Lieber 2016):(7)  a. the frequent arrest of Iowa college football playersb. Sir Edmund Hillary’s climb of Mount Everest• Natural text corpora exhibit many counterexamples to Borer‘s data:(8) a. Tokyo allowed the continued import of South African coal (COCA)b. Beijing's continuing export of dangerous missiles and nuclear technology c. Trump defended his salute of one of Kim's generals. (NOW)➢A simple root-based analysis cannot be the full answer for ZNs!9Road map1. Previous insights on zero-derived nominals2. Change of state semantics lexicalized by verbs3. ZNs built on result roots4. ZNs built on psych property concepts 5. Conclusions10Two types of state roots for COS verbs• Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (BKG to appear): change of state (COS) verbs are builton two types of roots (Dixon 1982):• Property concepts ~ adjectives in English (=> Levin‘s 1993 deadjectival COS verbs)• Dimension: large (big), small, short, long, deep, wide, tall• Color: white, black, red, green, blue, brown• Physical Property: cool, cold, warm, hot, dirty, dry, wet• Human Propensity: angry, calm, scare, sick, sad (depress), hurt, tire, embarrass• Result roots ~ verbs in English (=> non-deadjectival COS verbs)• Entity-specific COS: burn, melt, freeze, decay (rot), swell, grow, bloom, ferment • Breaking Verbs: break, crack, crush, shatter, split, tear (rip), snap• Verbs of Killing: dead/die/kill, murder, drown• Verbs of Calibratable COS: rise, ascend, increase, fall, drop, descend, decrease, decline11COS is lexicalized by verbs• Koontz-Garboden et al (2019): lexicalization of property concepts in 88 languages: • When polysemy is available, verbal lexemes can be polysemous with change of state senses; adjectival and nominal property concept lexemes cannot:• E.g., openA/V, calmA/N/V (state & COS) vs. redA/N/*V (state)/redden (COS)➢Generalization: The same property concept word can give rise to state and change of state lexical entailments just in case it is a verb.➢A semantic test for ZNs based on result roots vs. property concepts in English12Two types of state roots for COS verbs• Beavers & Koontz-Garboden (BKG to appear): change of state (COS) verbs are builton two types of roots (Dixon 1982) • Property concepts ~ adjectives in English (=> Levin‘s 1993 deadjectival COS verbs)• Dimension: large (big), small, short, long, deep, wide, tall• Color: white, black, red, green, blue, brown• Physical Property: cool, cold, warm, hot, dirty, dry, wet• Human Propensity: angry, calm, scare, sick, sad (depress), hurt, tire, embarrass• Result roots ~ verbs in English (=> non-deadjectival COS verbs)• Entity-specific COS: burn, melt, freeze, decay (rot), swell, grow, bloom, ferment • Breaking Verbs: break, crack, crush, shatter, split, tear (rip), snap• Verbs of Killing: dead/die/kill, murder, drown• Verbs of Calibratable COS: rise, ascend, increase, fall, drop, descend, decrease, decline13COS meaning with ZNs• Following KG et al (2019), COS meaning with property concepts requires verbal lexicalization => corresponding ZNs should include at least a vP(9) [nP Ø [√ROOT ] ]  (10) [nP Ø [vP Ø [√ROOT ] ] ]• Psych ZNs ≈ “human propensity” property concepts (angry, calm, hurt, embarrass) most likely lack COS meaning and should be simple root-based nouns => (9)• Although they are verb-related, they do not involve a verb (cf. calm – hurt) • ZNs built on result roots may encode COS meaning and have verb structure => (10)• Entity-specific COS (burn, melt, decay); Breaking Verbs (break, crack, crush, shatter); Verbs of Killing (kill, murder); Verbs of Calibratable COS (rise, increase, fall, drop)➢ Test if such ZNs with COS readings may realize argument structure in confirmation of a verbal internal structure14Road map1. Previous insights on zero-derived nominals2. Change of state semantics lexicalized by verbs3. ZNs built on result roots4. ZNs built on psych property concepts 5. Conclusions15Empirical resources• A database of 1,000+ ZNs that documents, among others:• Verb classes from VerbNet (Kipper Schuler 2005 – extension of Levin‘s 1993)• OED senses categorized in 4 classes: Event, (Result) State, Result entity/Product, Agent/Instrument/Cause• Data attested in corpora at www.english-corpora.org:• COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English • GloWbE: Corpus of Global Web-Based English• NOW: News on the Web• Search for argument realization (possessive, of-genitive, by-phrases) and additional event modifiers to confirm event structure (cf. Iordachioaia to appear)16ZNs built on result roots: Breaking, bending & cooking Vs• These Vs yield result entity ZNs, as predicted by Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2013): e.g., break, crack, crush, shatter, rip, split, tear; bend, fold, crinkle, crumple, stretch; bake, fry, roast, steam, boil, broil, stew, scald, toast• Event-like ZNs appear with light verbs (see break, split, rip, bend, fold, boil, bake), have no event structure of their own (*the break of the window)• Only crash and roast realize argument structure:(11) a. […] will ultimately lead to a complete crash of the US economy (GloWbE)b. the deliberate crash of a Germanwings passenger jet into a mountainsidec. the sun resumed its slow roast of the forest canopy (COCA)17ZNs built on result roots: Entity-specific COS• Result entity readings: burn, melt, rot, swell, bloom, blossom, sprout, tarnish• Most have event readings but it is unclear whether they all show argument & event structure; some display internal arguments:(12)a. Coast Guard begins controlled burn of oil in Gulf. (NOW)b. if we don't stop […] the continued melt of sea ice, that population will  disappear (NOW)c. a continuing, slow thaw of a credit card lending industry (GloWbE)d. a continued decay of British society; the ongoing decay of culture (GloWbE)e. describing the continued slow rot of self-interested politicians (GloWbE)18ZNs built on result roots: Calibratable COS• Only a few result entity ZNs: rise, raise, vary, increase• Most have event readings and realize argument structure:(13) a. satellites have tracked the gradual rise of the world's ocean (GloWbE)b. the surgery will also stop the constant increase of pain (GloWbE)c. It is the result of the continued fall of the dollar. (GloWbE)d. the continuous drop of the budget deficit (NOW)e. 4 reported only a gradual decrease of benefit with longer delay (GloWbE)f. the biggest focus of the military in recent years has been a continuous raiseof salaries (GloWbE)19ZNs built on result roots: Verbs of killing• All show event readings and realize argument structure:(14) a. [he] probably witnessed their murder of his mother (NOW)b. their dispatch of Osama bin Laden last May (NOW)c. the Uzbek army's massacre of civilians in Andija (NOW)d. the slaughter of the city's Jews by crusaders (NOW)e. legalizing the on-site kill of meat animals on farms (GloWbE)f. Jaret Babych's rubout of Patrick McGillis sent the Viper captain to the hospital for x-rays (NOW)20ZNs built on result roots: Summary• Some ZNs derived from COS verbs (which lexicalize result roots) may inherit a COS meaning and also realize argument structure, as predicted by the hypothesis that COS meaning requires verbal lexicalization• Some subclasses (entity-specific, calibratable COS, Vs of killing) are moreproductive than others (breaking, bending, cooking Vs)21Road map1. Previous insights on zero-derived nominals2. Change of state semantics lexicalized by verbs3. ZNs built on result roots4. ZNs built on psych property concepts 5. Conclusions22Psych ZNs: amuse-Vs• Amuse-Vs may be causative and possibly involve a change of state (Grimshaw 1990, Pesetsky 1995, Sichel 2010, Alexiadou et al 2013, Alexiadou & Iordăchioaia 2014):(15)  a. The enemy destroyed the city.     (The city got destroyed.)b. The movie amused the children.  (The children got amused.)➢ Do their ZNs encode change of state and realize argument structure?23Psych ZNs derived from amuse-Vs• Mostly state ZNs: anger, baffle, concern, content, daze, delight, discomfit, disgrace, disgust, disquiet, dismay, fluster, lull, muddle, puzzle, rankle, sting, trouble, worry• Many stimulus/cause ZNs: affront, bother, charm, concern, delight, haunt, lull, puzzle, rankle, shock, surprise, torment, wound• Most event ZNs are not psych: dazzle, disarm, exhaust, refresh, ruffle, transport• Only a few ZNs receive psych event-like readings: shock, surprise, stun, torment24Psych ZNs with argument realization• Shock, surprise, and torment can be found with arguments (Iordachioaia to appear):(16) a. Larry Fisher's shock at her accusation could have resulted from […] (COCA)b. Whether it was my foreign accent or Belle's surprise at my information c. Britain’s torment over EU membership is rooted in history (NOW)d. He redoubled his torment of the poor animal (COCA)➢ Do these encode change of state and verb structure?25Change of state in psych ZNs?• To exhibit COS, these ZNs should be eventive; but only torment can be eventive: (17) a. Amanda’s shock at the news [persisted for half an hour/*happened in the garden].b. Olivia’s surprise at the present [?persisted for a while/*happened in the kitchen].c. Sam’s torment over the loss of his wife [persisted for years/*happened 2y ago].d. The murderer’s torment of his victim [??persisted for hours/?happened at noon].(Iordachioaia to appear)➢ Psych ZNs do not show eventive/COS readings with argument structure➢ Semantic arguments of psych ZNs have root-specific prepositions, whichindicates that they are not structural (Pesetsky 1995): cf. (17c) – (17d)26Argument realization with psych nouns• Argument realization in psych ZNs does not originate in verbal structure• Experiencers and stimuli are realized with comparable PPs in non-causative admire-ZNs, but also deadjectival psych nouns or lexical psych nouns, which have no verbal structure:(18)a. Ann’s love for/of her sisterb. Sam’s sadness at the newsc. the boy’s passion for soccerd. my horror/joy at the news27COS readings in psych nouns• Some psych ZNs exceptionally acquire COS meaning: e.g., torment in (17d):The murderer’s torment of his victim [??persisted for hours/?happened at noon].• Iordachioaia (2019): only agentive psych nominals show argument structure on coerced COS readings (cf. Grimshaw 1990, Sichel 2010, Alexiadou et al 2013)(19) a. The clown/*the movie (deliberately) amused/humiliated the audience.b. the clown’s/*the movie’s amusement/humiliation of the audience(20) a. The doctor/the situation (*deliberately) amazed/depressed the patients.b. *the doctor’s/the situation’s amazement/depression of the patients28COS meaning and argument structure with psych nouns• Not all agentive psych Vs exhibit COS psych nouns with argument structure• Cf. torment in (17d) and agentive annoy/anger (Grafmiller 2013, Alexiadou et al. 2019):(20) a. John intentionally annoyed/angered his friend.b. *John’s annoyance/anger of his friend(21) a. *Our constant annoyance of Mary got on our nerves. (Pesetsky 1995: 74)b. the residents' annoyance at the kids/with noise (state reading)29Psych ZNs: Summary• Psych ZNs do not typically exhibit COS readings or argument structure (see Iordachioaia 2019 on both suffix-based and zero nominals)• Only a few ZNs derived from agentive psych Vs show coerced COS readings and argument structure: amusement/torment do, but annoyance/anger do not.➢ This behavior indirectly supports the hypothesis that COS meaning in ZNs requires verbal structure, which also allows argument realization ➢(i.e., psych ZNs do not show COS meaning and do not inherit verbal argument        structure)30Road map1. Previous insights on zero-derived nominals2. Change of state semantics lexicalized by verbs3. ZNs built on result roots4. ZNs built on psych property concepts 5. Conclusions31Conclusions• The behavior of ZNs is more dynamic than predicted by Borer‘s root-based formation (i.e., root categorization; see Iordachioaia to appear on this aspect)• ZNs may display COS readings and realize argument structure, depending on the verb classes they are derived from: result roots vs. psych property concepts• The correlation between COS meaning and argument realization presents a case where identifying the lexical category of a verb (i.e., its functional structure) combines both semantic and distributional evidence• Argument realization in COS ZNs supports Koontz-Garboden et al‘s hypothesis that COS meaning requires verbal lexicalization• Further question: Why are some result verb subclasses more likely to yield COS meaning ZNs than others?32Acknowledgments• I am very grateful to Katie Fraser, Andrew McIntyre, Neil Myler, Chris Piñón, and Jim Wood for their native speaker judgments.• A substantial part of the data reported here will be published in Iordachioaia (toappear), which approaches them from a slightly different theoretical perspective. I thank Andrew McIntyre, Hagit Borer, and Artemis Alexiadou for constructive comments and discussion on that paper.• This research has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the grant IO 91/1-1 (2018-2021) for the project Zero-derived nouns and deverbal nominalization: An empirically-oriented perspective at the University of Stuttgart.33References• Alexiadou, A., J. Darby, G. Spathas & M. Walsh. 2019. Interpretability, aspectual coercion, and event structure in Object-Experiencer verbs: an acceptability study. Manuscript, Humboldt University of Berlin.• Alexiadou, A. & G. Iordachioaia. 2014. The psych causative alternation. Lingua 148: 53-79.• Alexiadou, A., G. Iordăchioaia, M. Cano, F. Martin & F. Schäfer. 2013. The Realization of External Arguments in Nominalizations. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16.2: 73-95.• Baker, M. 2003. Lexical categories. Cambridge: CUP.• Baker, M. & W. Croft. 2017. Lexical Categories: Legacy, Lacuna, and Opportunity for Functionalists and Formalists. The Annual Review of  Linguistics. 3:179–97• Beavers, J. & A. Koontz-Garboden. To appear. The roots of verbal meaning. Oxford: OUP. • Borer, H. 2013. Taking Form. Oxford: OUP.• Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum, (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184-221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.• Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: De Gruyter.• Von Fintel, K. & L. Matthewson. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25, 139–201• Grafmiller, J. 2013. The semantics of syntactic choice: An analysis of English emotion verbs. PhD thesis, Stanford University.• Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.• Grimm, S. & L. McNally. 2013. No ordered arguments needed for nouns. In Aloni, M. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium. University of Amsterdam.• Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.• Harley, H. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In M. Rathert & A. Giannakidou, eds., DP, QP and Nominalizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.34References• Hopper, P. & S. Thompson. 1985. The iconicity of the universal categories “noun” and “verb”. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Proceedings of a Symposium on iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24-6, 1983, 151-183. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia• Huyghe R., L. Barque, P. Haas & D. Tribout. 2017. The semantics of underived event nouns in French. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 29.1: 117-142.• Kipper Schuler, K. 2005. VerbNet: A Broad-coverage, Comprehensive Verb Lexicon. University of Pennsylvania dissertation.• Koontz-Garboden, A., J. Beavers, R. Bochnak, M. Bowler, M. Everdell, I. Francez, E. Hanink, K. Jerro, E. LeBovidge & S. Nichols. 2019. State/change of state polysemy and the lexical semantics of property concept lexemes. Handout, University of Stuttgart, May 14.• Iordachioaia, G. To appear. Categorization and nominalization in zero nominals. A. Alexiadou & H. Borer, Nominalizations: 50 Years on from Chomsky's Remarks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.• Iordachioaia, G. 2019. The root derivation of psych nominals: Implications for competing overt and zero nominalizers. BucharestWorking Papers in Linguistics 19.2.• Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.• Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. 2013. Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In Arsenijević, B., B. Gehrke & R. Marín, eds., Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates, 49-70. Dordrecht: Springer.• Lieber, R. 2016. English nouns. The ecology of nominalization. Cambridge: CUP.• Newmeyer, F. 2009. Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis. An overview and a critique. In William D. Lewis, Simin Karimi, Scott O. Farrar & Heidi Harley., eds., Time and Again, 91-117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.• Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.• Sichel, I. 2010. Event Structure Constraints in Nominalization, in A. Alexiadou & M. Rathert (eds.), The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks, 151-190. Berlin: Mouton.35ZNs built on COS and amuse verbs: Overview36ZN readingVerb class(Instance of) EventInternalArgument(Result) StateProduct/Result entityAgent/Cause/InstrumentTotal of ZNsCOS: break 10 4 4 10 1 11COS: bend 3 0 2 7 0 8COS: cooking 6 2 5 9 2 11Entity-specific-COS 16 9 6 10 3 17Calibratable COS 13 10 3 5 2 14Other COS 30 15 15 26 14 50Verbs of killing 10 9 1 5 2 10Amuse-Vs 7 9 33 7 28 52-6=46

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.73804.1-0389859/manifest

Comment

Related Items