Argument realization

2005 ◽  
pp. 17-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adele E. Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Argument Realization

scholarly journals Inducing Implicit Arguments from Comparable Texts: A Framework and Its Applications

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 625-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Roth ◽  
Anette Frank
Keyword(s):  
Computational Models ◽  
Current Model ◽  
Implicit Argument ◽  
Implicit Arguments ◽  
Argument Realization ◽  
Projection Approach ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Graph Based Model ◽  
A Current ◽  
Sentential Meaning

In this article, we investigate aspects of sentential meaning that are not expressed in local predicate–argument structures. In particular, we examine instances of semantic arguments that are only inferable from discourse context. The goal of this work is to automatically acquire and process such instances, which we also refer to as implicit arguments, to improve computational models of language. As contributions towards this goal, we establish an effective framework for the difficult task of inducing implicit arguments and their antecedents in discourse and empirically demonstrate the importance of modeling this phenomenon in discourse-level tasks. Our framework builds upon a novel projection approach that allows for the accurate detection of implicit arguments by aligning and comparing predicate–argument structures across pairs of comparable texts. As part of this framework, we develop a graph-based model for predicate alignment that significantly outperforms previous approaches. Based on such alignments, we show that implicit argument instances can be automatically induced and applied to improve a current model of linking implicit arguments in discourse. We further validate that decisions on argument realization, although being a subtle phenomenon most of the time, can considerably affect the perceived coherence of a text. Our experiments reveal that previous models of coherence are not able to predict this impact. Consequently, we develop a novel coherence model, which learns to accurately predict argument realization based on automatically aligned pairs of implicit and explicit arguments.

scholarly journals A comparison of the modal dać się structure with the dispositional middle in Polish

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 43-63
Author(s):  
Anna Bondaruk
Keyword(s):  
Active Agent ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Argument Realization ◽  
Grammatical Structures ◽  
Syntactic Derivation ◽  
Special Meaning

The paper compares the modal dać się structure with the dispositional middle in Polish. It is argued that the two structures are similar as regards argument realization, i.e. in both constructions, the theme argument appears in the structural subject position. The two structures also have a dispositional meaning in common. However, they show a number of differences. They differ in the presence of a syntactically active agent, their aspectual properties, the availability of episodic interpretations, the obligatory presence of an adverbial modifier, and verb class restrictions. Although these differences seem to argue against a common syntactic derivation for the two structures analysed here, they do not preclude classifying the modal dać się structure as a subtype of the dispositional middle. If middles are seen as a notional category, understood as a special meaning that different grammatical structures can have, along the lines postulated by Condoravdi (1989), then the modal dać się structure can be subsumed under the label of middle. In fact, it is argued that the modal dać się structure represents Type II middles in Ackema and Schoorlemmer’s (2005) typology, and it shows properties typical of lassen-middles in German (Pitteroff 2014).

Argument realization of psychological verbs

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao Li
Keyword(s):  
Subject Position ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Physical Force ◽  
Single Argument ◽  
Psych Verbs ◽  
Unaccusative Verbs ◽  
Argument Realization ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Psychological Verbs

Abstract By using data from nearly thirty languages of various families and regions, this paper examines the argument realization of three types of psychological verbs (i.e. causative bivalent, non-causative bivalent, and monovalent). It finds that, when compared with the argument realization of core transitive verbs like BREAK, causative bivalent psych verbs show crosslinguistic uniformity in that they pattern with core transitive verbs in argument realization. The same comparative approach finds that the argument realization of non-causative bivalent psych verbs shows a lot of crosslinguistic variation. As for monovalent psych verbs, the paper finds that they almost always pattern with the argument realization of unaccusative verbs. The findings of the paper are accounted for by using the Force-Control-Causality (FCC) model of verb meaning. Under this model, the uniformity in argument realization with respect to causative bivalent psych verbs is due to the prominence of the causative relationship expressed and the directionality of the causality from the Causer to the Causee. The variation in argument realization with respect to non-causative bivalent psych verbs can be attributed to the fact that such verbs express neither causation nor transmission of physical force. As for the near uniformity in argument realization with respect to monovalent psych verbs, it is due to the fact that they involve only one argument (thus no competition for the subject position) and this single argument shares the [−control] feature with the single argument of unaccusative verbs. This study points to the need of recognizing Causer and Causee as two core and highly-ranked thematic roles in a global thematic hierarchy.

Morphology and Argument Alternations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malka Rappaport Hovav
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Causative Alternation ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
Linguistic Patterns ◽  
Argument Realization ◽  
Morphologically Rich Languages ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Morphological Patterns

Theories of argument realization typically associate verbs with an argument structure and provide algorithms for the mapping of argument structure to morphosyntactic realization. A major challenge to such theories comes from the fact that most verbs have more than one option for argument realization. Sometimes a particular range of realization options for a verb is systematic in that it is consistently available to a relatively well-defined class of verbs; it is then considered to be one of a set of recognized argument alternations. Often—but not always—these argument alternations are associated morphological marking. An examination of cross-linguistic patterns of morphology associated with the causative alternation and the dative alternation reveals that the alternation is not directly encoded in the morphology. For both alternations, understanding the morphological patterns requires an understanding of the interaction between the semantics of the verb and the construction the verb is integrated into. Strikingly, similar interactions between the verb and the construction are found in languages that do not mark the alternations morphologically, and the patterns of morphological marking in morphologically rich languages can shed light on the appropriate analysis of the alternations in languages that do not mark the alternations morphologically.

Argument Realization and Case in Japanese

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideki Kishimoto
Keyword(s):  
Exceptional Case ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Light Verb Constructions ◽  
Light Verb ◽  
Locative Alternation ◽  
Verb Constructions ◽  
Negative Adjective ◽  
Argument Realization ◽  
Embedded Contexts ◽  
Case Markers

Japanese is a language where the grammatical status of arguments and adjuncts is marked exclusively by postnominal case markers, and various argument realization patterns can be assessed by their case marking. Since Japanese is categorized as a language of the nominative-accusative type typologically, the unmarked case-marking frame obtained for transitive predicates of the non-stative (or eventive) type is ‘nominative-accusative’. Nevertheless, transitive predicates falling into the stative class often have other case-marking alignments, such as ‘nominative-nominative’ and ‘dative-nominative’. Consequently, Japanese provides much more varying argument realization patterns than those expected from its typological character as a nominative-accusative language. In point of fact, argument marking can actually be much more elastic and variable, the variations being motivated by several linguistic factors. Arguments often have the option of receiving either syntactic or semantic case, with no difference in the logical or cognitive meaning (as in plural agent and source agent alternations) or depending on the meanings their predicate carry (as in locative alternation). The type of case marking that is not normally available in main clauses can sometimes be obtained in embedded contexts (i.e., in exceptional case marking and small-clause constructions). In complex predicates, including causative and indirect passive predicates, arguments are case-marked differently from their base clauses by virtue of suffixation, and their case patterns follow the mono-clausal case array, despite the fact that they have multi-clausal structures. Various case marking options are also made available for arguments by grammatical operations. Some processes instantiate a change on the grammatical relations and case marking of arguments with no affixation or embedding. Japanese has the grammatical process of subjectivization, creating extra (non-thematic) major subjects, many of which are identified as instances of ‘possessor raising’ (or argument ascension). There is another type of grammatical process, which reduces the number of arguments by virtue of incorporating a noun into the predicate, as found in the light verb constructions with suru ‘do’ and the complex adjective constructions formed on the negative adjective nai ‘non-existent.’

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document