Abstract
Verbs of creation such as write and paint, in English and in other languages, occur in two distinct types of sentences: transitive or intransitive (The teacher wrote the letter/The teacher wrote (a lot) and The artist painted a picture/The artist painted (a lot)). In this paper, we provide an analysis of such syntactic alternation, drawing on data from Brazilian Portuguese. We argue that this syntactic phenomenon is triggered by a semantic process of polysemy, and not by an argument alternation, as is assumed by some authors. We show evidence to support our proposal, namely, the distinct aspectual interpretations of the different sentences with verbs of creation, the distinct prefixation with re- in the transitive and intransitive forms, and the polysemy found in the nominalizations of the analyzed verbs. In order to formalize our semantic account, we propose a type of representation, a predicate decomposition structure enriched by a simple truth-conditional semantics of the root.
Acknowledgements
Luana Amaral thanks the financial support from CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) and FAPEMIG (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais). She also thanks Professor Márcia Cançado, Professor James Pustejovsky, SHLL editors, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this paper.
References
Amaral, Luana. 2013. Os predicados primitivos ACT e DO na representação lexical dos verbos [The primitive predicates ACT and DO in the lexical representation of verbs]. Belo Horizonte, MG: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Faculdade de Letras) master’s thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Amaral, Luana & Márcia Cançado. 2014. Verbos de criação do português brasileiro: classificação e representação lexical [Verbs of creation in Brazilian Portuguese: classification and lexical representation]. Linguística 10(1). 51–73.Search in Google Scholar
Amaral, Luana & Márcia Cançado. 2015. Argument structure of activity verbs in Brazilian Portuguese. Semantics-Syntax Interface 2(2). 115–140.Search in Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudeman. 2005. What is Morphology? Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Apresjan, Jurij D. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 142. 5–32.10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5Search in Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2014. Linking arguments to verbal meaning. Lecture notes from the X Workshop on Formal Linguistics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, Aug 25–27, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
Borba, Francisco da Silva. 1990. Dicionário gramatical de verbos do português contemporâneo do Brasil [Grammatical verbal dictionary of contemporary Brazilian Portuguese]. São Paulo: Editora Unesp.Search in Google Scholar
Cançado, Márcia, Luisa Godoy & Luana Amaral. 2013. Catálogo de verbos do português brasileiro: classificação verbal segundo a decomposição de predicados. Volume 1: verbos de mudança [Catalogue of Brazilian Portuguese verbs: verb classification in predicate decomposition. Volume 1: Verbs of change]. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG.Search in Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie. 1993. Formal Semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166317Search in Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann & Ted Briscoe. 1996. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. In James Pustejovsky & Branimir Boguraev (eds.), Lexical Semantics: The problem of polysemy, 15–67. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/jos/12.1.15Search in Google Scholar
Damasceno, Maria. 2006. Verbos polissêmicos: propriedades semânticas e processos metafóricos [polysemous verbs: semantic properties and metaphorical processes]. Belo Horizonte, MG: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Faculdade de Letras) master’s thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Chicago: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Naomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rappoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements.” In Tanya Mathews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings of SALT IX, 127–144. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833Search in Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi. 2002. Does MANNER count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics 40(1). 61–110.10.1515/ling.2002.008Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1999. Objecthood: An event structure perspective. In Sabrina Billings, John Boyle & Aaron Griffith (eds.), Proceedings of CLS 35. Volume 1: The main session, 223–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity at the syntax lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1998. Morphology and lexical semantics. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold Zwicky (eds.), Handbook of morphology, 248–271. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781405166348.ch12Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610479Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2013. Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In Boban Arsenijević, Berit Gehrke & Rafael Marín (eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates, 49–70. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_3Search in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Meirelles, Letícia & Márcia Cançado. 2014. Análise semântica do prefixo re- em verbos do português brasileiro [Semantic analysis of the prefix re- in Brazilian Portuguese verbs]. Revista da Abralin 13(1). 155–180.10.5380/rabl.v13i1.38262Search in Google Scholar
Moens, Marc & Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14. 15–28.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2010. Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511780684Search in Google Scholar
Panman, Otto. 1982. Homonymy and polysemy. Lingua 58. 105–136.10.1016/0024-3841(82)90059-6Search in Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina, Rodolfo Llinás & Gregory L. Murphy. 2006. The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(1). 97–109.10.1162/089892906775250003Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2008. The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2001. A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 11, 346–364. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.10.3765/salt.v11i0.2858Search in Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2008. Verbs of creation. In Johannes Dölling, Tanja Heyde-Zybatow & Martin Schäfer (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 493–521. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110925449.493Search in Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2010. Draw. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, 270–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 2014. Lexical Semantics. Manuscript, Brandeis University. http://www.cs135.org/?page_id=20 (accessed 27 December 2014).Search in Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James & Branimir Boguraev (eds.). 1996. Lexical semantics: The problem of polysemy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meaning. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2012. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj & Tal Siloni (eds.), The theta system: Argument structure at the interface, 150–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tania. 2002. The theta system – an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 229–290.10.1515/thli.28.3.229Search in Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470759127Search in Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Emiliano Guevara. 2005. The lexicalist approach to word-formation and the notion of the Lexicon. In Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, 147–187. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_7Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6Search in Google Scholar
Stechow, Armin Von. 2001. Temporally opaque arguments in verbs of creation. In Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds.), Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora and aspect, 278–319. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences 25. 637–655.10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00031-7Search in Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610578Search in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.10.7591/9781501743726Search in Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 39–94.10.1017/CBO9780511597848.004Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton