Event Participants and Verbal Semantics: Non-Discrete Structure in English, Spanish and Mandarin

Verbs are widely analyzed as functions taking a discrete number of arguments (e.g., drink has two arguments but give has three). Recent studies, however, suggest that English verbs encode Instruments as more or less salient (e.g., the Instrument is more salient for slice, less salient for eat). We conducted a judgment task with adult speakers of Spanish and Mandarin and found that verbs in these languages also encode Instruments as having a relative degree of salience, inconsistent with the discrete model of participant encoding.

[1]  Michael Grüninger,et al.  Introduction , 2002, CACM.

[2]  R. Larson.  On the double object construction , 1988 .

[3]  Kyle Rawlins,et al.  Ingredients of Instrumental Meaning , 2017, J. Semant..

[4]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  (1) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms; and , 1987 .

[5]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[6]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycholinguistic perspectives , 2006 .

[7]  Carson T. Schütze.  PP attachment and argumenthood , 1995 .

[8]  Bas Aarts,et al.  Syntactic gradience : the nature of grammatical indeterminacy , 2007 .

[9]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Thematic roles and language comprehension , 1988 .

[10]  B. Landau,et al.  Using instruments to understand argument structure: Evidence for gradient representation , 2015, Cognition.

[11]  Karin Kipper Schuler,et al.  Argument Realization , 2006, Comput. Linguistics.

[12]  David R. Dowty.  The Dual Analysis of Adjuncts/Complements in Categorial Grammar , 2000 .

[13]  Jesse Snedeker,et al.  It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles , 2014 .

[14]  Julie E. Boland.  Visual arguments , 2005, Cognition.

[15]  M. Dummett.  Frege: Philosophy of Language , 1973 .

[16]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Optimization and Quantization in Gradient Symbol Systems: A Framework for Integrating the Continuous and the Discrete in Cognition , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

[18]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Arguments for adjuncts , 2003, Cognition.

[19]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[20]  Ida Toivonen,et al.  Event participants and linguistic arguments , 2016, CogSci.

[21]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts , 2014 .

[22]  R. Jackendoff.  Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution , 2002 .

[23]  Elisabeth Rieken.  Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective , 2009 .

[24]  Joe Pater.  The harmonic mind : from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar , 2009 .

[25]  Heinz Vater,et al.  On the possibility of distinguighing between complements and adjuncts , 1978 .

[26]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability , 2008 .

[27]  Alexander Williams,et al.  Arguments in Syntax and Semantics , 2015 .

[28]  E. Rosch.  Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. , 1975 .

[29]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Same Argument Structure, Different Meanings: Learning ‘Put’ and ‘Look’ in Arrernte , 2007 .

[30]  R. Levy.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[31]  A. Majid,et al.  The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking , 2008, Cognition.