Complementation by Construction By Laura Michaelis

1. Complementation by ConstructionBy Laura Michaelis “Where does a verb’s frame come from?”

2. Argument Structure Constructions (patterns that denote situation types)         Lexicon (Lexical Projection) ‘bottom-up’ & ‘top-down’ approaches Verb Frame

3. Where are these getting their extra argument(s)? • A gruff ‘police monk’ barks them back to work. • I acted mad and guilted her to come over. (source: google search) • [I] lifted [the butterfly] off my finger and fluttered her into the blue blue sky. (source: google search)

4. “A gruff ‘police monk’ barks them back to work.”

5. For context-free grammar: • This is an issue because… • Phrasal patterns shouldn’t denote anything • Phrases supposed to combine patterns rather then being symbols themselves • Rappaport, et al. lexical derivation model (RHL) tries to preserve the compositional model through Aktionsart Class templates (P4)

6. RHL Model • Lexical projection (bottom-up) model • Verb meanings are represented by even-structure templates • Verbs go through semantic operations/ derivations (simpler ->complex event structures) • Each of the syntactic frames are associated with a distinct verb meaning • Syntactic phrase structures are unaffected

7. Against RHL Model: Valence reduction and Null Complementation • Predictions on Null Complementation • As non-structural arguments, second arguments of bivalent state, achievement, and activity verbs should always be omissible. • For the participants to be recoverable, null complements should always have existential interpretation. • As structural arguments, patient argument of accomplishment verbs should never be omissible.

8. Against RHL Model: Valence reduction and Null Complementation

9. Against RHL Model: Valence reduction and Null Complementation • Doesn’t account for: • Null complements of non-verbal predicators e.g. Make me a copy (of that) She walked over (here). I’m taller (than you). • Null complementation is affected by context e.g. Where did she cross (the road) - stative/fictive motion Where does Hwy 42 cross *(Hwy 287) - actual motion

10. Against RHL Model: Valence Augmentation • Aktionsart representation fails to account for examples in which each XP doesn’t correspond to a sub event e.g. She crumbled the crackers into the soup ~ x CAUSE[BECOME y <STATE>] • Becomes problematic when a verbs fits into more than one class e.g. They sailed the Caribbean in/for three months. in -> accomplishment; for-> activity

11. Other Evidences for Construction: Weird Sisterhood • Nominal Extraposition Construction • Exclamatory adjective licenses a NP complement • “It’s amazing!”vs. “It’s amazingthe words they come up with.” • Some others: • It’s remarkable the way he fits right into the team • It's unbelievable the rookie talent this season. • It's crazy the time and detail its takes for a wedding. • It's astonishing the things you humans will give your affections to. (talking about soap opera)

12. Other Evidences for Construction: Weird Sisterhood • Just Because Construction • A negated epistemic verb licenses a just because subject clause • “Just because you’re paranoiddoesn’t mean they are out to get ya.”

13. Other Evidences for Construction: Weird Sisterhood • Hypotactic Apposition • A copula licenses cataphoric pronoun and a clausal complement (coreferencial with the pronoun) • “That’s the problemisthat they hate us so much.”(vs. The problem is that they hate us so much) • Others: • “That’s the problem is that everyone’s got a different definition” • “Well, that’s the thing is that I found out in Chicago…” • “That’s the point is that violent actions are much more dramatic and memorable.”

14. Other Evidences for Construction: Argument Quantification • Quantifier scope hierarchies capture tendencies, but not specific constraints on argument structures For example, hierarchies says:“topical/subject scope non-topical/non-subject” Creation: Every oak grew out of an acorn. An oak grew out of every acorn. Transformation:Every acorn grew into a oak.*An acorn grew into every oak.

15. Other Evidences for Construction: Argument Quantification • Why? Scope reflects the pragmatic role of the argumentsCreation: Every oak grew out of an acorn. An oak grew out of every acorn. But…Transformation:Every acorn grew into a oak.*An acorn grew into every oak. Creation: That oak-TP grew out of an acorn. An oak grew out of it-TP . Transformation:The acorn-TP grew into an oak.*An acorn grew into it-TP.

16. Other Evidences for Construction: Operator-Free Nominal • In a similar way, context and interpretation for the correct/intended reading of the following: • You have apple on your shirt. • Apple dries easily. • Operator-based nominal coersion can’t explain: • Hand me sometowels. • Semantic and quantifier frames that constructions provide are necessary!

17. Other Evidences for Construction: Paradigmatic Effects • Certain argument constraints can only be understandable when a construction is viewed to override another when two constructions combine. • Episodic context:We discussed *(things) last night.They destroyed/rebuild *(things)? • Existential context:They discuss and discuss (things) but never …They destroy (things) and we rebuild (things).

18. Other Evidences for Construction: Speech Errors “To what extent am I responding to errors that I’m not conscious of it?” • This is hard to explain simply with grammatical functions. • If see this as 2 construction frames that compete against each other then are produced as an overlap, it makes sense. • In the above case: relative clause frame + conjunction frame