Cover not available
Part of
Word Classes: Nature, typology and representations
Edited by Raffaele Simone and Francesca Masini
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 332] 2014
► pp. 37–50

Classes of creation verbs

| University of Pavia
This paper introduces a taxonomy for creation verbs consisting in two main classes: create verbs and verbs of derived creation. Each class has subclasses which are discussed in detail. I argue that while verbs belonging to the first class have creation as their core sense, verbs of derived creation either have another sense as primary or are underspecified, and take on a creation reading only in verb-argument composition. The overall goal of the paper is to support this distinction through a corpus-informed qualitative analysis of the semantic and syntactic properties of a target set of verbs belonging to both classes. Particularly, starting from intuitive semantic groupings, I pin down the syntactic features shared by verbs belonging to each group and propose a classification at the syntax/semantic interface. Results of the analysis show that the proposed distinction is empirically grounded.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.332.03jez
References (20)
Atkins, B.T. Sue, Judith Kegl & Beth Levin. 1988. “Anatomy of a Verb Entry: From linguistic theory to lexicographic practice”. International Journal of Lexicography 1:2.84–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisetto, Antonietta & Chiara Melloni. 2007. “Result Nominals: A lexical-semantic investigation’”. On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5), Fréjus 15–18 September 2005 ed. by Geert Booij, Bernard Fradin, Emiliano Guevara, Sergio Scalise & Angela Ralli, 393–412. Bologna: University of Bologna.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. “Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora”. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society ed. by Vassiliki Nikiforidou, Mary Van Clay, Mary Niepokuj & Deborah Feder, 95–107. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection”. Language 67.574–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jezek, Elisabetta & Chiara Melloni. 2011. “Nominals, Polysemy, and Co-predication”. Journal of Cognitive Science 12.1–31.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternation. A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1999. “Two Structures for Compositionally Derived Events”. The Proceedings of SALT IX ed. by Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch, 199–223. Ithaca, N. Y.: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osswald, Rainer. 2005. “On Result Nominalization in German”. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9 ed. by Emar Maier, Corien Bary & Janneke Huitink, 256–270. Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics (NCS).Google Scholar
Piñon, Christopher. 2008. “Verbs of Creation‘’. Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation ed. by Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow & Martin Schäfer, 493–521. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Co-compositionality in Grammar”. The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality ed. by Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen & Edouard Machery, 371–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. “Lexicalized Meaning and the Internal Temporal Structure of Events”. Crosslinguistic and Theoretical Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect ed. by Susan Rothstein, 13–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. “Building Verb Meanings”. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and compositional factors ed. by Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantic Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Valin, Robert D. 2013. “Lexical Representation, Co-composition, and Linking Syntax and Semantics”. Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory (= Text, Speech and Language Technology 46) ed. by James Pustejovsky, Pierrette Bouillon, Hitoshi Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki & Chungmin Lee, 67–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2001. “Temporally Opaque Arguments in Verbs of Creation‘’. Semantic Interfaces ed. by Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria Teresa Guasti, 278–319. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Schirakowski, Barbara
2023. The VP in language contact: on creation event lexicalization in Canadian French. Folia Linguistica 57:2 ► pp. 481 ff. DOI logo
Oggiani, Carolina
2021. “Escribir artículo“: nombres singulares escuetos en posición de objeto en español rioplatense. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.