Verbs of CreationVerbs of creation I Verbs of creation denote the coming into being of a new entity...

Transcript of Verbs of CreationVerbs of creation I Verbs of creation denote the coming into being of a new entity...

Verbs of Creation

Elisabetta Jezek

Conference on Word Classes: Nature, Typologyand Computational Representations

Roma Tre University24-26 March 2010

Elisabetta Jezek Verbs of Creation
Outline of the talk

I Subclasses of verbs of creation.

I Event Structure and Argument Structure.

I Event Structure: Incrementality, Result State.

I Argument Structure: Explicit vs. Implicit arguments.

I Modelization issues.

I Concluding observations and further research.

Outline of the talk







Outline of the talk







Outline of the talk







Outline of the talk







Outline of the talk







Verbs of creation

I Verbs of creation denote the coming into being of a newentity as a result of the event in question.

I They describes an event in which an Agent causes an entity tocome into existence (→precondition of non existence).

I They take effected objects. An effected object is an objectthat is brought into existence as a result of the action namedby the verb.

I ”They rented a flat in Rome and built a house in Greece.”

I ”A few years ago he wrote a book on mathematics.”

Verbs of creation






Verbs of creation






Verbs of creation






Verbs of creation






Subclasses of verbs of creation

Verbs of creation come in two main sorts:

I Those denoting the coming into being of the referent of theirdirect internal argument as a result of the event in question:

I built a house, write a book, compile a list, dig a hole, cut aslice, bake a cake.

I Those denoting the coming into being of an entity that doesnot surface as an argument to the verb:

I translate a book, paint the landscape, photograph a sculpture.

Created objects that do not get realized in the syntax

I translate a book → created object: translation.

I paint the landscape → created object: painting.I photograph a sculpture → created object: photograph.


I translate a book → created object: translation.I paint the landscape → created object: painting.

I photograph a sculpture → created object: photograph.


I translate a book → created object: translation.I paint the landscape → created object: painting.I photograph a sculpture → created object: photograph.


I (Syntactically) overt creation verbs (build-verbs).

I (Syntactically) covert creation verbs (translate-verbs).


I (Syntactically) overt creation verbs (build-verbs).

I (Syntactically) covert creation verbs (translate-verbs).


I Canonically, only verbs belonging to the first group (e.g.build-verbs) are considered creation verbs.

I However, this is a restrictive view that fails to capture anumber of interesting generalizations about the way creationevents are encoded in language.

I For instance, both the build-verbs and the translate-verbsmay exhibit result nominalizations which are able to refer tothe created entity (e.g. building, translation).

I I will assume that the presence of a corresponding resultnominalization is a good diagnostics for creation verbs (→but this needs refining).

Dowty 1979

Two main classes of creation verbs:

1. Transitive verbs of creation (accusativus effectivus):

I derived from activities: draw (a picture), knit (a sweater).I not derived from activities: make, build, create, construct,

erect.

2. Creation of a ”Performance Object”:

I Concrete Representation Created: paint a landscape, draw aunicorn.

I Abstract ”Performance Object” created:I ”Agent performance”: perform a sonata, prove a theorem.I ”Experiencer performance”: listen to a symphony.

Dowty 1979


1. Transitive verbs of creation (accusativus effectivus):I derived from activities: draw (a picture), knit (a sweater).

I not derived from activities: make, build, create, construct,erect.




Dowty 1979


1. Transitive verbs of creation (accusativus effectivus):I derived from activities: draw (a picture), knit (a sweater).I not derived from activities: make, build, create, construct,

erect.




Dowty 1979



erect.




Dowty 1979



erect.

2. Creation of a ”Performance Object”:I Concrete Representation Created: paint a landscape, draw a

unicorn.


Dowty 1979



erect.


unicorn.I Abstract ”Performance Object” created:

I ”Agent performance”: perform a sonata, prove a theorem.I ”Experiencer performance”: listen to a symphony.

Dowty 1979



erect.


unicorn.I Abstract ”Performance Object” created:I ”Agent performance”: perform a sonata, prove a theorem.

I ”Experiencer performance”: listen to a symphony.

Dowty 1979



erect.


unicorn.I Abstract ”Performance Object” created:I ”Agent performance”: perform a sonata, prove a theorem.I ”Experiencer performance”: listen to a symphony.

Dowty 1979

I Concrete Representation Created: “Here something is created,but not literally the thing named by the object NP. Rather, arepresentation of that object is created, and the object itselfdoes not undergo any change” (Dowty 1979: 69-70).

Dowty 1991

I The notion of Representation-Source Theme is introduced inDowty (1991: 569 ss.). A Representation-Source Theme is aTheme that refers to an object which constitutes the sourceof the representation that is created, as the landscape in painta landscape.

Levin 1993

1. Verbs of Creation and Transformation (class 26 →Verbnet):

I build verbs: creation of a product through transformation ofraw material: assemble, bake, build, carve, compile.

I grow verbs: transformation of an entity from one to another.I verbs of preparing : as build verbs, but no material/product

alternation.I create verbs: dig, fabricate, invent, produce.I knead verbs: bringing about of a change of shape in an entity;

this transformation can be viewed as a type of creation.I turn verbs: convert, transform, transmute.I performance verbs: compose (symphony), draw (picture),

dance (waltz), write (book).

Levin 1993







Levin 1993



I grow verbs: transformation of an entity from one to another.

I verbs of preparing : as build verbs, but no material/productalternation.

I create verbs: dig, fabricate, invent, produce.I knead verbs: bringing about of a change of shape in an entity;



Levin 1993




alternation.

I create verbs: dig, fabricate, invent, produce.I knead verbs: bringing about of a change of shape in an entity;



Levin 1993




alternation.I create verbs: dig, fabricate, invent, produce.

I knead verbs: bringing about of a change of shape in an entity;this transformation can be viewed as a type of creation.

I turn verbs: convert, transform, transmute.I performance verbs: compose (symphony), draw (picture),


Levin 1993





this transformation can be viewed as a type of creation.

I turn verbs: convert, transform, transmute.I performance verbs: compose (symphony), draw (picture),


Levin 1993





this transformation can be viewed as a type of creation.I turn verbs: convert, transform, transmute.

I performance verbs: compose (symphony), draw (picture),dance (waltz), write (book).

Levin 1993







Levin 1993

1. Image Creation Verbs (class 25 → Verbnet).

I verbs of image impressionI scribble verbs: carve, draw, paint, print, scribble, sketch, type,

write.I illustrate verbs: decorate.I transcribe verbs: copy, photograph, record, tape, transcribe,

type.

Levin 1993

1. Image Creation Verbs (class 25 → Verbnet).I verbs of image impression

I scribble verbs: carve, draw, paint, print, scribble, sketch, type,write.

I illustrate verbs: decorate.I transcribe verbs: copy, photograph, record, tape, transcribe,

type.

Levin 1993

1. Image Creation Verbs (class 25 → Verbnet).I verbs of image impressionI scribble verbs: carve, draw, paint, print, scribble, sketch, type,

write.

I illustrate verbs: decorate.I transcribe verbs: copy, photograph, record, tape, transcribe,

type.

Levin 1993


write.I illustrate verbs: decorate.

I transcribe verbs: copy, photograph, record, tape, transcribe,type.

Levin 1993


write.I illustrate verbs: decorate.I transcribe verbs: copy, photograph, record, tape, transcribe,

type.

Levin 1993

I ”A number of verbs listed in the various subclasses of verbs ofcreation and transformation are also found listed as membersof other verb classes. Typically, these are verbs that haveother uses describing activities that might result in thecreation or assembly of an entity; usually the other uses ofthese verbs are more basic. [...] In their use as verbs ofcreation these verbs take effected objects as well as Dowty’s1991 representation source: paint a picture vs. paint a view.”(Levin 1993, 172).

Badia & Sauŕı 2001

1. Creation predicates: creation of the entity denoted by theobject (Cat. construir ’build’).

2. Transformation predicates: transformation of the entitydenoted by the object (Cat. subratllar ’underline’).

3. Redescription predicates: transformation of the entitydenoted by the object, but at the same creation of a newentity (Cat. copiar ’copy’, analitzar ’analyse’, traduir’translate’).

Bisetto & Melloni 2007

1. Result object verbs: verbs with an effected objectcorresponding to an incremental theme (costruire ’build’,creare ’create’).

2. Resultative action verbs: create a new object beside anexisting one represented by the DO of V.

I Resultative verbs of creation: create a new object beside anexisting one and leave the entity expressed in DO positionunmodified (trascrivere ’transcribe’, citare ’quote’, copiare’copy’, ritrarre ’portrait’, fotografare ’photograph’, registrare’record’ ecc.).

I Resultative verbs of modification: causes a salient modificationon the existing object/entity; the modification acquiresreferential autonomy (argentare ’silver’, correggere ’amend’,decorare ’decorate’, modificare ’modify’, riparare ’repair’).

Melloni 2007

Non-prototypical creation verbs:

1. Verbs of assembling and combining: accatastare’stockpile’, ammassare ’amass’, assemblare ’assemble’,raggruppare ’group’.

2. Speech act verbs: affermare ’state’, ammettere ’admit’,comunicare ’communicate’, dichiarare ’declare’, osservare’observe’, suggerire ’suggest’, testimoniare ’testify’ etc.

3. Mental action verbs: immaginare imagine’, considerare,pensare ’think’, ragionare ’reason’, sognare ’dream’, valutare’evaluate’ etc.

4. Verbs of emission: emettere ’emit’, eruttare ’erupt’, esalare’exhalate’, illuminare ’light up’.

5. Verbs of appearance: apparire ’appear’, comparire ’appear’,rivelarsi ’reveal oneself’ etc.

Melloni 2007







Melloni 2007







Melloni 2007







Melloni 2007







Creation verbs as Accomplishments

I Creation verbs are conventionally analyzed asAccomplishments.

I Complex events with a causing subevent (creation ACT) anda BECOME subevent associated with a result state (Dowty1979, RH&L 1998:108 a.o.).

I [[[ x ACT ] CAUSE [BECOME [y ]]]

Creation verbs as Incremental Theme Verbs

I Creation verbs are Incremental Theme Verbs (ITV s, cf. Krifka1989, Dowty 1991, Tenny 1994).

I Incremental Themes are those participants that measure outthe temporal extent of the event (cf. eat an apple vs. push achart) (Tenny 1994).

I With creation verbs, the temporal extent of the event ismeasured out by the existence of the object.

Creation verbs as Scalar Predicates

I Incrementality of creation events may be recasted in scalarterms (Hay, Kennedy & Levin 1999, Beaver 2008 a.o.).

I ITVs are scalar verbs, i.e. verbs denoting events of scalarchange.

I ”A scale is an ordered set of values for a particular attribute(of an event participant)”.

I ”A scalar change is one which involves an ordered set ofchanges in a particular direction of the values of a singleattribute and so can be characterized as movement in aparticular direction along the scale” (Rappaport Hovav 2008).

Kinds of scales

I Property scales associated with change of state verbs suchas lengthen, shorten, dim, open, close, widen etc.

I Path scales associated with verbs of directed motion, such asascend, descend.

I Extent scales associated with incremental theme verbs suchas read, eat and build.

Kinds of scales




Kinds of scales




What scale for creation verbs?

I According to Hay, Kennedy & Levin 1999 a.o., the propertyavailable to construct a graduality scale for creation verbs isthe property of the effected object to go through gradualchanges in its spatial extent during the execution sequences ofthe event.

I It is the gradable property spatial extent of the incrementaltheme, and not the incremental theme itself, that instantiatesthe homomorphism between (portions of) the event and(portions of) the object.

What scale for creation verbs?

I According to Hay, Kennedy & Levin 1999 a.o., the propertyavailable to construct a graduality scale for creation verbs isthe property of the effected object to go through gradualchanges in its spatial extent during the execution sequences ofthe event.

I It is the gradable property spatial extent of the incrementaltheme, and not the incremental theme itself, that instantiatesthe homomorphism between (portions of) the event and(portions of) the object.

Aspectual composition

I Following Rappaport Hovav 2008 ”the scale which occurswith ITVs (extent scale) is not directly encoded in the verb,but rather provided by the referent of the direct object”.

I Following Rappaport Hovav 2008, many ITVs do notthemselves lexicalize a scale, but rather the scale isintroduced compositionally by the objects of these verbs(Kennedy and Levin 2008).

I ”It appears that ITVs do not encode a measure of changefunction and are instead Activities” (Kennedy 2009).

Do Creation Events encode an inherent result state?

1. The derived Nominalizations are unable to refer to theresulting state (Jezek & Melloni 2009).

I Building cannot refer to the state of being built, nor can itdenote the state of existence of the building.

2. Many creation verbs exhibit alternation between a variantwith object and a variant with no object: write, translate,paint (crucially, not build, though).

I Result verbs generally rule this out (RH&L 1998, RH&L 2009).According to L&RH 2005: 232, result verbs consistently lackor resist object deletion.

I How can you drop an object which is not there yet?

Our proposal

I We attempt a formal modeling of the Event Structure ofcreation verbs taking as a starting point the enriched view ofEvent Structure proposed in Pustejovsky (2000), where it isassumed that creation predicates introduce the mode ofopposition (Opposition Structure, OS) that the objectundergoes through the event, namely between the object notexisting and the object existing.

Enriched ES for ”build”(adapted from Pustejovsky 2000)

e <

!1 e2

° exist(y) e1 e3 build_act(x) ¬exist(y)

OS

Enriched ES(with Event Co-identification)

I Melloni & Jezek 2009 and Jezek & Melloni 2009 propose tomodel incrementality of creation events by assuming EventCo-identification at the ES level.

I Event Co-identification (L&RH 1999) is the relationship oftemporal dependency that holds between two subevents of acomplex event structure when they unfold at the same ratewith respect to a change in property of a participant.

I The property that triggers event co-identification withcreation verbs is the property of the effected object to gothrough gradual changes in its physical extent during theevent (L&RH 1999:213).


e

°

!1 e2

° exist(y) e1 e3 build_act(x) ¬exist(y)

I In Jezek & Melloni 2009, e2 is a convenient label for thesequence of states (of existence) on which the object ismapped.

An alternative proposal

I Creation verbs may encode a potential for scalar change (i.e.lexicalize a scale of change).

I The entity in the denotation of the object of the verb providesthe bound for the scale.

I The result interpretation is attained compositionally.

Enriched ES(with abstract Path)

I We propose to formally encode an abstract Path in thelexical semantic representation of V.

I We analyze e1 dynamically as a sequence of transitionsthrough states (drawing from Pustejovsky 2009: see alsoNaumann 2001).

I The abstract Path is a function that maps the createdobject y onto subportions of e1.

I There is a change in value over some property of y in eachstate making up e1.

”John built a house”(with abstract Path)

[John (x), house (y)] : e < !1 e2 ° exist(y) e1 e3 ¬exist(y)

S1 … S2 … Sn

built_act(x,y), Path (built_act,y)

Fig. 3. Event Structure representation for the expression: build the house Elisabetta Jezek Verbs of Creation
”John translated the book”(with abstract Path)

[John(x), book(y), translation(z)] : e <

!1 !2 ° ° e1 e3 e2 e4

¬exist(z) be_translated(y) exist(z)

S1…..S2.....Sn

translate_act (x,y,z), Path (translate_act, z)

Fig. 4. Event Structure representation for the expression: translate the book Elisabetta Jezek Verbs of Creation
Concluding observations

I We have discussed various classifications proposed in theliterature for both overt and covert creation verbs.

I We have proposed that:

I Incrementality is formally encoded in creation verbs as apotential abstract Path.

I The entity in the DO denotation supplies the bound for thePath.

I The created object of covert creation verbs is formallyencoded as a semantic participant (hidden argument).

I Expressions with covert creation verbs introduce a complexresult state at the level of ES.

Further research

I It is still unclear what is the attribute/property available toconstruct the graduality scale for creation verbs: in the caseof build, construction stages/extent or degrees of existence?

I The details of the aspectual/semantic composition have to beworked out formally.

Further research

I It is still unclear what is the attribute/property available toconstruct the graduality scale for creation verbs: in the caseof build, construction stages/extent or degrees of existence?

I The details of the aspectual/semantic composition have to beworked out formally.

Acknowledgments

I I would like to thank the organizers and audience of theWorkshop on Scalarity and Event Structure (Chronos 9,Paris-Diderot, Sept. 2-4 2009), where this research was firstpresented.

I I also thank my co-author Chiara Melloni for discussion ofvarious aspects of this work, James Pustejovsky for his inputto this research and two anonymous reviewers for their usefulcomments and suggestions.

References

I Badia Toni and Sauŕı Roser. 2001. ”A note on redescriptionpredicates”. In Pierrette Bouillon and Kyoko Kanzaky (eds)Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on GenerativeApproaches to the Lexicon (April 26-28, 2001). Geneva.Switzerland.

I Beavers John. 2008. ”Scalar complexity and the structure ofevents”. In Dölling J., T. Heyde-Zybatow and M. Schäfer(eds) Event structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation.Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter.

I Bisetto Antonietta and Chiara Melloni. 2007. ”ResultNominals: a Lexical-Semantic Investigation”. In Booij G., B.Fradin, E. Guevara, S. Scalise and A. Ralli (eds) On-lineProceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting(MMM5), Fréjus 15-18 September 2005. Bologna: Universityof Bologna, http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/.

References

I Caudal Patrick. 1999. ”Achievements vs Accomplishments: aComputational Treatment of the So-called Punctuality vs.Durativity of Events, and Perhaps of Event Structure”. Paperpresented at Conférence TALN 1999, Cargèse, July 12-17.

I Dowty David R. 1979. Word meaning and MontagueGrammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

I Dowty David. R. 1991. ”Thematic proto-roles and argumentselection”. Language 67:574-619.

I Hay Jennifer, Chris Kennedy and Beth Levin. 1999. ”ScalarStructure underlies Telicity in Degree Achievements”. In Theproceedings of SALT IX, Tanya Matthews and DevonStrolovitch (eds), 127-144. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

References

I Jezek Elisabetta and Chiara Melloni 2009. ”Complex Types inthe (morphologically) complex lexicon”. In Pierrette Bouillonet al. (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop onGenerative Approaches to the Lexicon (Sept. 17-19, 2009).Pisa. Italy.

I Kennedy Chris 2009. ”Aspectual Composition and ScalarChange”. Oral Presentation at Workshop on Scalarity andEvent Structure, Chronos 9, Paris-Diderot, Sept. 2-4 2009.

I Kennedy Chris and Beth Levin 2008. ”Measure of Change:The adjectival Core of Degree Achievements”. In LouiseMcNally and Chris Kennedy (eds) Adjectives and Adverbs:Syntax, Semantics and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 156-182.

References

I Levin Beth 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternation. APreliminary Investigation, Chicago, The University of ChicagoPress.

I Levin Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav 1999. ”Twostructures for compositionally derived events”. In Theproceedings of SALT IX, Tanya Matthews and DevonStrolovitch (eds), 199-223, Ithaca: CLC Publications.

I Melloni Chiara. 2007. Polysemy in Word Formation: The Caseof Deverbal Nominals. PhD dissertation, Verona University.

I Melloni Chiara and Elisabetta Jezek 2009. ”Inherent Polysemyof Action Nominals”, Oral presentation at the JSM 2009.Journées Sémantique et Modélisation, Paris, April 9-10, 2009.

References

I Naumann, Ralf 2001. ”Aspects of change: A Dynamic EventSemantics’. In Journal of Semantics 18: 27-81.

I Parsons, Terence 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. AStudy in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge Mass: The MITPress.

I Pustejovsky James. 2000. ”Events and the semantics ofopposition”. In Events as Grammatical Objects, C. Tenny andJ. Pustejovsky (eds), 445-482. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

I Pustejovsky James. 2009. ”Compositionality and theparametrization of meaning”. Oral presentation at the 5thInternational Workshop on Generative Approaches to theLexicon, Pisa, ILC-CNR, Sept. 17-19.

References

I Rappaport Hovav Malka. 2008. ”Lexicalized meaning and theinternal temporal structure of events”, in S. Rothstein (ed),Crosslinguistic and Theoretical Approaches to the Semanticsof Aspect, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13-42.

I Rappaport Hovav Malka and Beth Levin. 1998. ”Buildingverb meanings”. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical andCompositional Factors, Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder(eds), 97-134. Stanford (CA): CSLI Publications.

I Rappaport Hovav Malka and Beth Levin. 2009. ”Reflectionson Manner/Result complementarity”. In E. Doron, M.Rappaport Hovav and I. Sichel (eds), Syntax, LexicalSemantics and Event Structure, Oxford: OUP.

References

I Tenny Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-SemanticInterface. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

I van Lambalgen Michiel and Fritz Hamm. 2005. The ProperTreatment of Events. Blackwell Publishing.

Verbs of CreationVerbs of creation I Verbs of creation denote the coming into being of a new entity...

Documents

Transcript of Verbs of CreationVerbs of creation I Verbs of creation denote the coming into being of a new entity...