In this paper, we propose an account of linking patterns that does away with intermediary mechanisms such as thematic or actor/undergoer hierarchies. Instead, constraints on word classes, defined by both syntactic and semantic criteria, encode generalizations between semantic roles and syntactic arguments. We show that the generalizations a linking theory needs to capture can be modeled via the same mechanisms as other lexical generalizations, using conditions specified within the hierarchy of word classes. Each condition provides a partial specification of the mapping between semantic roles and syntactic arguments. We argue that this constraint-based, verb-class-based view of linking offers several empirical advantages: partial regularities and exceptions are easily accomodated, fine-grained semantic distinctions relevant to linking are countenanced, and cross-cutting similarities between semantic and syntactic verb classes are economically captured.

The interpretation of coercion construc- tions (to begin a book) has been recently considered as resulting from the operation of type changing. For instance, a phrase of type o (object) is coerced to a phrase of type e (event) under the influence of the predi- cate. We show that this procedure encounters empirical difficulties. Focussing on the begin/commencer case, we show that the coercion interpretation results both from general semantic processes and properties of the predicate, and we argue that it is best represented at the lexical level. The solution is formulated in the HPSG formalism, where the lexical description of heads includes a specification of the argument and articulates syntax and semantics. We propose that the properties attached to the complement remain the same as they are oustside the construction, but that the semantics of the predicate is enriched to include an abstract predicate of which the complement is an argument.

this paper. Since transitive verbs necessarily have objects, a challenge for theories of transitivity is how to deal with the just-mentioned problems involving the semantic correlates of objecthood. In this paper I revisit these issues from a novel perspective, showing that the notion `object' of a transitive verb can be fruitfully explored in the context of recent work on the structure and representation of verb meaning and the licensing of arguments. Much recent research has converged on the notion `event' as an important organizing notion in the linguistic representation of meaning, and the grammatically-relevant component of a representation of verb meaning is now often called an `event structure' because its form is determined by the basic event type of the verb. I suggest that two distinct event structures can give rise to objects: a complex, causative event structure and a simple event structure. I argue that these two sources for objects shed light on some of the well-known challenges associated with the semantic underpinnings of objecthood. I use the transitive verbs of English to make these points, although I believe that the results of this research will largely generalize across languages (see section 4). 1. The `other' transitive verbs

We challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings: a caused possession meaning realized by the double object variant and a caused motion meaning realized by the to variant. Instead, we argue that verbs like give and sell only have a caused possession meaning, while verbs like throw and send have both caused motion and caused possession meanings. We show that the caused possession meaning may be realized by both variants. Concomitantly, we argue that verbs like give, even in the to variant, lack a conceptual path constituent, and instead have a caused possession meaning which can be understood as the bringing about of a ‘have ’ relation. We reassess evidence for alternative approaches adduced from inference patterns and verb–argument combinations and demonstrate how our verb-sensitive analysis, when combined with an account of variant choice, provides a more insightful explanation of this data, while having wider coverage. Our investigation affirms proposals that a verb’s own meaning plays a key role in determining its argument realization options. To conclude, we consider the crosslinguistic implications of our study, attempting to explain why so

The dynamics model, which is based on L. Talmy’s (1988) theory of force dynamics, characterizes causation as a pattern of forces and a position vector. In contrast to counterfactual and probabilistic models, the dynamics model naturally distinguishes between different cause-related concepts and explains the induction of causal relationships from single observations. Support for the model is provided in experiments in which participants categorized 3-D animations of realistically rendered objects with trajectories that were wholly determined by the force vectors entered into a physics simulator. Experiments 1–3 showed that causal judgments are based on several forces, not just one. Experiment 4 demonstrated that people compute the resultant of forces using a qualitative decision rule. Experiments 5 and 6 showed that a dynamics approach extends to the representation of social causation. Implications for the relationship between causation and time are discussed.

Conceptual projection from one mental space to another always involves projection to "middle" spaces---abstract "generic" middle spaces or richer "blended" middle spaces. Projection to a middle space is a general cognitive process, operating uniformly at different levels of abstraction and under superficially divergent contextual circumstances. Middle spaces are indispensable sites for central mental and linguistic work. The process of blending is in particular a fundamental and general cognitive process, running over many (conceivably all) cognitive phenomena, including categorization, the making of hypotheses, inference, the origin and combining of grammatical constructions, analogy, metaphor, and narrative. Blending is not secondary to these phenomena but prerequisite, and its operation is not restricted to any one of these phenomena. We give evidence for blending from a wide range of data that includes everyday language, idioms, literary metaphor, non-verbal conceptualization of ac...

This paper addresses the phenomenon of event composition: the derivation of a single event description expressed in one clause from two lexical heads which could have been used in the description of independent events, each expressed in a distinct clause. In English, this phenomenon is well attested with respect to sentences whose verb is found in combination with an XP describing a result not strictly lexically entailed by this verb, as in (1). (1) The joggers ran the pavement thin. This sentence makes reference to a complex event encompassing an event of running and an event of becoming thin. The lexical heads run and thin appear in a single clause, with the AP appearing as closely bound to the verb in the syntax as subcategorized complements (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995; Tenny 1994; Roberts 1988), justifying the assumption that a single event is made reference to by this sentence. We consider (1) to be an instance of event composition since its verb, run, on its own does not entail a particular result state, and certainly not a result state that does not involve the runner. Furthermore, the components of the event described in this example could have been expressed in separate clauses, as in

Nonstative verbs from various lexical fields are often classified as either manner or result verbs—a distinction implicated in language acquisition (Behrend 1990, Gentner 1978, Gropen et al. 1991), as well as in argument realization. Intuitively speaking, manner verbs specify as part of their meaning a manner of carrying out an action, while result verbs specify the coming about of a result state. Verbs of each type are listed in (1). As the lists illustrate, the manner/result distinction crosscuts the transitive/intransitive distinction.

can be used to describe events of transfer, show two options for expressing their arguments, jointly referred to as the dative alternation, illustrated in (1)-(3) with English data. (1) a. Terry gave Sam an apple b. Terry gave an apple to Sam (2) a. Martha sent Myrna a package b. Martha sent a package to Myrna (3) a. Leigh threw Lane the ball b. Leigh threw the ball to Lane In a recent paper, M. Rappaport Hovav and B. Levin (2008) challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings and, concomitantly, associates each meaning with a particular syntactic realization (e.g. S. Beck and K. Johnson 2004, G. Green 1974,

Abstract not found