Abstract
Which normally transitive verbs can omit their objects in English (I ate), and why? This article explores three factors suggested to facilitate object omission: (i) how strongly a verb selects its object (Resnik 1993); (ii) a verb's frequency (Goldberg 2005); (iii) the extent to which the verb is associated with a routine – a recognized, conventional series of actions within a community (Lambrecht & Lemoine 2005; Ruppenhofer & Michaelis 2010; Levin & Rapaport Hovav 2014; Martí 2010, 2015). To operationalize (iii), this article compares the writings of different communities to offer corpus and experimental evidence that verbs omit their objects more readily in the communities in which they are more strongly associated with a routine. More broadly, the article explores how the meaning and syntactic potential of verbs are shaped by the practices of the people who use them.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference64 articles.
1. Foundations of Language
2. AllenNLP: A deep semantic natural language processing platform;Gardner;In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics,2018
3. Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted
4. Honnibal, Matthew & Johnson, Mark . 2015. An improved non-monotonic transition system for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1373–8.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Variable agentivity: Polysemy or underspecification;Glossa: a journal of general linguistics;2024-07-19
2. The obligatoriness of arguments;Language and Linguistics Compass;2024-03-19
3. Quantifying relational nouns in corpora;English Language and Linguistics;2022-10-20