Macro-events in Verb–verb Compounds from the Perspective of Baseline and Elaboration: Iconicity in Typology and Grammaticalization

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Yiting Chen

In Talmy’s typology of event integration, macro-events are classified into five types (motion, temporal contouring, state change, action correlating, and realization) by the framing event. Examining compound verbs representing macro-events cross-linguistically, this paper argues that macro-events can be classified into two types from the viewpoint of “elaboration” (Langacker 2016): augmentation (motion, state change, and realization) and adaptation (temporal contouring and action correlating). Based on iconicity, compound verbs can be said to be the best candidates for encoding conceptually integrated complex events considering their high lexical integrity. This paper shows that the two types of macro-events in compound verbs are distinct in the order of the framing event and the co-event, the representation of the framing event, and their lexical integrity. These results suggest that the differences in baseline/elaboration organization iconically emerge as explicit differences in linguistic forms, indicating the validity of the “iconicity of structured mapping in compounds”.

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-277
Author(s):  
Ning Hsu ◽  
Matthew Rispoli ◽  
Pamela A. Hadley

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-100
Author(s):  
Wenchao LI

This paper brings data of verb compounds (V-Vs) from Japanese and Chinese, in an effort to uncover two issues: (a) whether the lexicalisation constraint (i.e. manner/result complementarity) applies to the languages that contain compound verbs; (b) how complex it can be to build compound verb. The finding reveals that manner and result are well encoded in most Japanese verb compounds, which gives rise to the assumption that the complementary constraint is not applicable to Japanese. In Chinese, the application of manner/result complementarity varies according to the types of V-V. In pair relation V-V, only manner meaning is conveyed. In predicate-complement V-V, both manner and result are lexicalised, with V1 encoding the manner and V2 denoting the result. Modifier-predicate V-V appears to only convey the manner. The conclusion emerging from the differing applications in the languages is that the manner/result complementary constraint does not apply to the languages that extensively employ verb compounds. 


Author(s):  
Hideki Kishimoto

This chapter discusses the syntactic behavior and some notable properties of syntactic V-V compounds in Japanese (Type 3 in the classification of Chapter 2), providing some fresh empirical data. In this chapter, syntactic V-V compounds are seen to be divided into raising and control types. Syntactic V-V compound verbs take distinct embedded structures, depending on whether V2 is classified as a raising or a control verb. V-V compounds allow some, but not all, V2s to undergo long-distance passivization. It is suggested that the difference in applicability of long-distance passivization between raising and control V-V compounds is determined according to whether V2 has an accusative-case feature to license an object, and also that control V-V compounds are not passivizable if they denote an uncontrollable event (even if V2 has an accusative-case feature). Furthermore, syntactic V-V compounds taking sugiru ‘exceed’ as V2 are shown to display a number of unique properties that are not shared with other syntactic compound verbs.


Author(s):  
Yo Matsumoto

Japanese has two different formal types of complex predicates involving two verbs: V-te V complex predicates and V-V compound verbs. This chapter discusses the nature of the former in comparison to the latter. The examination reveals that the two kinds of multiverbal complexes similarly have two subtypes, one monoclausal and the other biclausal, but that they are different morphologically, syntactically, and semantically. The most interesting finding is that the two crucially differ in whether deictic and honorific verbs, which encode perspectival and interactional meanings, can participate in the complexes. Morphologically tighter V-V compounds require a same-subject relation between the two verbs and exclude perspectival or interactional meanings (except V1 in syntactic compounds). Loosely concatenated V-te V complexes allow different subjects, typically have perfective/resultative V1, and have V2 as a preferred slot for perspectival/interactional meanings. These observations suggest that Japanese does not have these two options meaninglessly; the different multiverbal complexes serve different purposes.


Author(s):  
Taro Kageyama

Compound and complex predicates—predicates that consist of two or more lexical items and function as the predicate of a single sentence—present an important class of linguistic objects that pertain to an enormously wide range of issues in the interactions of morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics. Japanese makes extensive use of compounding to expand a single verb into a complex one. These compounding processes range over multiple modules of the grammatical system, thus straddling the borders between morphology, syntax, phonology, and semantics. In terms of degree of phonological integration, two types of compound predicates can be distinguished. In the first type, called tight compound predicates, two elements from the native lexical stratum are tightly fused and inflect as a whole for tense. In this group, Verb-Verb compound verbs such as arai-nagasu [wash-let.flow] ‘to wash away’ and hare-agaru [sky.be.clear-go.up] ‘for the sky to clear up entirely’ are preponderant in numbers and productivity over Noun-Verb compound verbs such as tema-doru [time-take] ‘to take a lot of time (to finish).’ The second type, called loose compound predicates, takes the form of “Noun + Predicate (Verbal Noun [VN] or Adjectival Noun [AN]),” as in post-syntactic compounds like [sinsya : koonyuu] no okyakusama ([new.car : purchase] GEN customers) ‘customer(s) who purchase(d) a new car,’ where the symbol “:” stands for a short phonological break. Remarkably, loose compounding allows combinations of a transitive VN with its agent subject (external argument), as in [Supirubaagu : seisaku] no eiga ([Spielberg : produce] GEN film) ‘a film/films that Spielberg produces/produced’—a pattern that is illegitimate in tight compounds and has in fact been considered universally impossible in the world’s languages in verbal compounding and noun incorporation. In addition to a huge variety of tight and loose compound predicates, Japanese has an additional class of syntactic constructions that as a whole function as complex predicates. Typical examples are the light verb construction, where a clause headed by a VN is followed by the light verb suru ‘do,’ as in Tomodati wa sinsya o koonyuu (sae) sita [friend TOP new.car ACC purchase (even) did] ‘My friend (even) bought a new car’ and the human physical attribute construction, as in Sensei wa aoi me o site-iru [teacher TOP blue eye ACC do-ing] ‘My teacher has blue eyes.’ In these constructions, the nominal phrases immediately preceding the verb suru are semantically characterized as indefinite and non-referential and reject syntactic operations such as movement and deletion. The semantic indefiniteness and syntactic immobility of the NPs involved are also observed with a construction composed of a human subject and the verb aru ‘be,’ as Gakkai ni wa oozei no sankasya ga atta ‘There was a large number of participants at the conference.’ The constellation of such “word-like” properties shared by these compound and complex predicates poses challenging problems for current theories of morphology-syntax-semantics interactions with regard to such topics as lexical integrity, morphological compounding, syntactic incorporation, semantic incorporation, pseudo-incorporation, and indefinite/non-referential NPs.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
JIDONG CHEN

AbstractChildren have to figure out the lexicalization of meaning components in learning verb semantics (e.g. Behrens, 1998; Gentner, 1982; Tomasello & Brooks, 1998). The meaning of an English state-change verb (e.g. break) is divided into two portions (i.e. cause and result), respectively encoded with a separate verb in a Mandarin resultative verb compound (RVC). The majority of Mandarin monomorphemic verbs do not specify any realization of a state change (like hunt), or only imply it (like wash) (Talmy, 2000). This study examines the acquisition of the constructional meaning of RVCs and the semantic division of labor between the component verbs. Four groups of Mandarin-learning children (aged 2;6, 3;6, 4;6, and 6;1) participated in an elicitation experiment. The results reveal that, although transparency in form facilitates their learning of the state-change meanings of RVCs, Mandarin children have difficulties in unpacking the meanings of individual verbs, revealing language-specific learning issues.


2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 805-822
Author(s):  
Wenchao Li

This paper is dedicated to a comparison of transitive/intransitive verb alternation in Japanese and Chinese. Discussions are focused upon three grammatical elements: monosyllabic verbs, compound verbs and constructions. The findings reveal that the two languages share similarities in two aspects: (i). transitive and intransitive verbs share the same word form; (ii) transitive and intransitive verbs can derive from the same adjective stems. Significant distinctions are also seen between the two: anticausativisation and decausativisation in Japanese are mainly facilitated in morphological level, e.g. anticausativisation is realised through the morpheme and decausativisation is conveyed by . The morpheme can be used with both intransitive and transitive verbs. Regarding Chinese, lexical and syntax have a curial role to play in transitive/intransitive verb alternation. Decausativisation appears the most favourable strategy of the alternation. Two ways of decausativisation is observed: schema of [action + resultative state]; verb compounds (V-V). Three types of V-Vs are possible for this strategy, i.e. Predicate-Complement V-V, Modifier-Head V-V and Coordinative V-V. Among them, predicate-complement V-V has the largest token of decausativisation. Moreover, constraints on Chinese anticausativisation and decausativisation are seen. When a resultative complment predicate an internal argument, the higher the agentivity that implies manner of action, the greater the unlikelihood of anticausativisation. In decausativisation, the internal argument that accepts the change of state is limited to the ‘possessive relationship.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document