Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-688nx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-09T13:32:01.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choosing an event description: What a PropBank study reveals about the contrast between light verb constructions and counterpart synthetic verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2020

CLAIRE BONIAL Open the ORCID record for CLAIRE BONIAL [Opens in a new window]  and
KIMBERLY A. POLLARD
CLAIRE BONIAL*
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
KIMBERLY A. POLLARD*
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
*
Author’s address: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Bldg. 205 4E-008D, 2800 Powder Mill Rd., Adelphi, MD20783, USAClaire.n.bonial.civ@mail.mil
Author’s address: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, 12025 Waterfront Dr., Los Angeles, CA90094, USAKimberly.a.pollard.civ@mail.mil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Light verb constructions (LVCs) in English and Romance languages are somewhat unique crosslinguistically because LVCs in these languages tend to have semantically similar synthetic verb counterparts (Zarco 1999): e.g. make an appearance and appear. This runs contrary to assumptions in linguistic theories that two competing forms are rarely maintained in a language unless they serve distinct purposes (e.g. Grice 1975). Why do English LVCs exist alongside counterpart synthetic verbs, especially given that synthetic verbs are arguably the more efficient form (Zipf 1949)? It has been proposed that LVCs serve an aspectual function (Prince 1972, Live 1973, Wierzbicka 1982, Tanabe 1999, Butt & Geuder 2001), as there are telic LVC counterparts (e.g. have a thought) of atelic verbs (e.g. think).  This proposal has been difficult to evaluate without a large-scale resource providing a markup of both LVCs and counterpart verbs. Addressing this gap in resources, the present research describes the development of guidelines for LVC annotation in the English PropBank (Bonial & Palmer 2015). The focus of this article is the subsequent analysis of these annotations, aimed at uncovering corpus evidence of what contexts call for the use of an LVC over a synthetic verb. The corpus study shows that the general function of LVCs is not an aspectual one and provides distributional evidence that the ease and variety with which LVCs can be modified is the general motivating factor for the use of an LVC.

Keywords

corpus annotationevent aspectlight verb constructionsynthetic verbtelicity

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 56 , Issue 3: Aspect beyond time , 01 August 2020 , pp. 577 - 600
Check for updates
Copyright
© U.S. Army Research Lab 2020. This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Thank you to Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit and Laura Michaelis for organizing the ‘Beyond Time: Unifying Temporal and Non-Temporal Uses of Aspectual Constructions’ workshop which brought together experts to discuss research relating to aspect, including the present research, and was the impetus for this special issue of the Journal of Linguistics. Many thanks to Martha Palmer, Laura Michaelis, Bhuvana Narasimhan, Albert Kim and Suzanne Stevenson for input on this research as part of Bonial’s (2014) doctoral thesis. Thank you to Judith Klavans for her help in editing, as well as the three JL referees of this article.

References

Akimoto, Minojo & Brinton, Laurel J.. 1999. Origin of the composite predicate in Old English. In Brinton & Akimoto (eds.), 21–56.Google Scholar
Banarescu, Laura, Bonial, Claire, Cai, Shu, Georgescu, Madalina, Griffitt, Kira, Hermjakob, Ulf, Knight, Kevin, Koehn, Philipp, Palmer, Martha & Schneider, Nathan. 2013. Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) 1.0 Specification. http://www.isi.edu/∼ulf/amr/help/amr-guidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
Bonial, Claire. 2014. Take a look at this! Form, function and productivity of English light verb constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder.Google Scholar
Bonial, Claire, Bonn, Julia, Conger, Kathryn, Hwang, Jena D. & Palmer, Martha. 2014. PropBank: Semantics of new predicate types. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), 3013–3019.Google Scholar
Bonial, Claire, Conger, Kathryn, Hwang, Jena D., Mansouri, Aous, Aseri, Yahya, Bonn, Julia, O’Gorman, Timothy & Palmer, Martha. 2017. Current directions in English and Arabic PropBank. In Pustejovsky, James & Ide, Nancy (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistic Annotations, 737–770. Dordecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonial, Claire & Palmer, Martha. 2015. Comprehensive and consistent PropBank light verb annotation. In Calzolari, Nicoletta, Choukri, Khalid, Declerck, Thierry, Goggi, Sara, Grobelnik, Marko, Maegaard, Bente, Mariani, Joseph, Mazo, Hélène, Moreno, Asunción, Odijk, Jan & Piperidis, Stelios (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), 3980–3985.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2002. How light are North Australian ‘light verbs’? Presented at the Light Verb Workshop, Harvard University, November 2002.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Akimoto, Minojo. 1999a. Introduction. In Brinton & Akimoto (eds.), 1–19.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Akimoto, Minojo (eds.). 1999b. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu (Dissertations in Linguistics). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. In Aygen, Gulsat, Bowern, Claire & Quinn, Conor (eds.), Papers from the GSAS/Dudley House Workshop on Light Verbs (Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9), 1–50. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2010. The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In Amberber, Mengistu, Baker, Brett & Harvey, Mark (eds.), Complex predicates in cross-linguistic perspective, 48–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm. 2001. On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs. In Corver, Norbert & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Semi-lexical categories: On the content of function words and the function of content words, 323–370. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cattel, Ray. 1984. Syntax and semantics: Composite predicates in English. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Wei-Te, Bonial, Claire & Palmer, Martha. 2015. English light verb construction identification using lexical knowledge. In Rossi, Ryan & Ahmed, Nasreen (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI–15), 2375–2381.Google Scholar
Cinková, Silvie, Hajič, Jan, Mikulová, Marie, Mladová, Lucie, Nedolužko, Anja, Pajas, Petr, Panevová, Jarmila, Semecký, Jiří, Šindlerová, Jana, Toman, Josef, Urešová, Zdeňka & Žabokrtský, Zdenék. 2004. Annotation of English on the tectogrammatical level (Technical Report TR-2006- 35). Prague: UFAL/CKL.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 425 million words, 1990–present. Available online at http://www.americancorpus.org.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Mester, Armin. 1988. Light verbs and $\unicode[STIX]{x03B8}$-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19.2, 205–232.Google Scholar
Hwang, Jena D., Bhatia, Archna, Bonial, Claire, Mansouri, Aous, Vaidya, Ashwini, Xue, Nianwen & Palmer, Martha. 2010. PropBank annotation of multilingual light verb constructions. In Xue, Nianwen & Poesio, Massimo (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop Held in Conjunction with ACL–2010, Uppsala, Sweden, 15–16 July 2010, 82–90.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, Part VI: Morphology. With assistance of Paul Christopherson, Niels Haislund & Knud Schibsbye. London: Goerge Allen & Unwin & Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kyto, Merja. 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based study of MAKE, HAVE, GIVE, TAKE and DO. In Brinton & Akimoto (eds.), 167–206.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Live, Anna H. 1973. The take-have phrasal in English. Linguistics 9, 31–50.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Meiko. 1999. Composite predicates in Middle English. In Brinton & Akimoto (eds.), 59–95.Google Scholar
Nickel, Gerhard. 1978. Complex verbal structures in English. Studies in Descriptive English Grammar 1, 63–83.Google Scholar
Norvig, Peter & Lakoff, George. 1987. Taking: A study in lexical network theory. In Aske, Jon, Beery, Natasha, Michaelis, Laura & Filip, Hana (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 13), 195–206. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Palmer, Martha, Gildea, Daniel & Kingsbury, Paul. 2005. The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics 31.1, 71–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passonneau, Rebecca. 2004. Computing reliability for coreference annotation. In Maria Teresa Lino, Maria Francisca Xavier, Fátima Ferreira, Rute Costa, Raquel Silva, with the collaboration of Carla Pereira, Filipa Carvalho, Milene Lopes, Mónica Catarino & Sérgio Barros (eds.), Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2004), 1503–1506.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1972. A note on aspect in English: The take a walk construction. In Plötz, Senta (ed.), Transformationelle Analyse, 409–440. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Rosen, Sara. 1989. Argument structure and complex predicates. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung: A study of event categorisation in an Australian language (MPI Series in Psycholinguistics 14). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2002. Neither noun nor verb nor particle. Presented at the Workshop Complex Predicates, Particles and Subevents, Konstanz, September.Google Scholar
Stein, Gabriele. 1991. The phrasal verb type ‘to have a look’ in Modern English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 29, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Suzanne, Fazly, Afsaneh & North, Ryan. 2004. Statistical measures of the semi-productivity of light verb constructions. In Tanaka, Takaaki, Villavicencio, Aline, Bond, Francis & Korhonen, Anna (eds.), Second ACL Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Integrating Processing, July 2004, 1–8.Google Scholar
Tanabe, Harumi. 1999. Composite predicates and phrasal verbs in The Paston Letters. In Brinton & Akimoto (eds.), 97–132.Google Scholar
Tu, Yuancheng & Roth, Dan. 2011. Learning English light verb constructions: Contextual or statistical. In Kordoni, Valia, Ramisch, Carlos & Villavicencio, Aline (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiword Expressions: From Parsing and Generation to the Real World (MWE 2011), 31–39.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weischedel, Ralph, Hovy, Eduard, Palmer, Martha, Marcus, Mitchell, Belvin, Robert, Pradhan, Sameer, Ramshaw, Lance & Xue, Nianwen. 2011. Ontonotes: A large training corpus for enhanced processing. In Olive, Joseph, Christianson, Caitlin & McCary, John (eds.), Handbook of natural language processing and machine translation, 54–63. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. Why can you have a drinkwhen you can’t *have an eat? Language 58.4, 753–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Stephen. 1999. Coverbs and complex predicates in Wagiman. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva, Khan, Manizeh & Snedeker, Jesse. 2017. Investigating thematic roles through implicit learning: Evidence from light verb constructions. Frontiers in Psychology 8, 1089. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva & Snedeker, Jesse. 2014. It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29.5, 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva & Levy, Roger. 2017. If you want a quick kiss, make it count: How choice of syntactic construction affects event construal. Journal of Memory and Language 94, 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarco, María Ángeles. 1999. Interlingual representation of complex predicates in a multilingual approach: The problem of lexical selection. In Saint-Dizier, Patrick (ed.), Predicative forms in natural language and in lexical knowledge bases, 321–347. Dordecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar