Cover not available
Part of
Structuring the Argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure
Edited by Asaf Bachrach, Isabelle Roy and Linnaea Stockall
[Language Faculty and Beyond 10] 2014
► pp. 61–80

The mental representation and processing of light verbs

ORCID logo | Tufts University | Harvard University | Potsdam University
ORCID logo | Tufts University
| Tufts University
| Tufts University
| Harvard University
| Potsdam University
This article gives an overview of our ongoing research on the processing and representation of light verb constructions. Light verb constructions consist of a light verb, which is semantically bleached, and an event nominal, which identifies the kind of event. Together the noun and the verb determine the structure of that event (the number of participants and their roles). Critically, in light verb constructions the canonical mapping from surface syntactic structure to event structure is disrupted. The present studies examine this phenomenon through the lens of language processing. We summarize several behavioral and neurolinguistic studies that show that the interpretation of light verb constructions relies on noncanonical mappings between syntax and semantics, while their syntactic structure is not different from non-light constructions.
Published online: 24 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.10.04wit
References (56)
References
Alsina, Alex. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar . Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baayen, R.R, Dijkstra, T., and Schreuder, R. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language , 36: 94–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1989. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bicknell, Klinton and Roger Levy. 2012. Word predictability and frequency effects in a rational model of reading. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Conference .
Bock, Kay. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology , 18: 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition , 31: 163–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kay, and Loebell, Helga. 1990. Framing sentences. Cognition , 35: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boland, Julie. 1997. The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes , 12(4): 423–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bott, Oliver. 2010. The Processing of Events . Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briem, Daniela, Balliel, Britta, Rockstroh, Brigitte, Butt, Miriam, Schulte im Walde, Sabine and Assadollahi, Ramin. 2010. Distinct processing of function verb categories in the human brain. Brain Research , 1249: 173–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 2001. Lights verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences , 23: 551–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu . Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2010. The Light Verb Jungle: Still Hacking Away. In Complex Predicates in Cross-Linguistic Perspective , Mengistu Amberber, Mark Harvey and Brett Baker (Eds), 48–78. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Bock, Kay, and Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition , 90: 29–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program . MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective . Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax . Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1988. “Verb serialization and verbal prepositions”. Oceanic Linguistics , 27: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., Hackl, M., Schaeffer, J., Kelepir, M., & Marantz, A. 2001. A magnetoencephalographic component whose latency reflects lexical frequency. Cognitive Brain Research , 10(3): 345–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Family, Neiloufar. 2009. Mapping semantic spaces: A constructionist account of the light verb eat in Persian. In From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations . M. Vanhove (Ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, Harley, Heidi and Karimi, Simin. 2004. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua, 115(10): 1365–1401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective . Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman. 11–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Words by default: The Persian complex predicate construction. In Mismatch: form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar , Elaine Francis and Laura Michaelis (Eds.), 117–149. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2009. The Nature of Generalization in Language. [Target Article] Cognitive Linguistics , 20(1): 93–127.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L., and Keyser, Samuel J. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger , 53–100. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip and Sag, Ivan. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86: 366–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1974. A deep structure projection rule. Linguistic Inquiry , 5(4): 481–505.Google Scholar
. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41: 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The Architecture of the language faculty . Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Foundations of Language . Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. A Parallel Architecture Perspective on Language Processing. Brain Research, 1146: 2–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung, Dukkyo. 2002. Light Verb just as a Little v. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 59–74.
Kay, Paul. 1995. Construction Grammar. In Handbook of Pragmatics . Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert (Eds), 171–177. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 3.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McElree, Brian, and Griffith, Teresa. 1995. Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition , 21(1): 134–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. 2002. On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry, 33 . 4: 665–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study . (Cognitive Linguistics Research 7.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paczynski, Martin, and Kuperberg, Gina. To appear. When events change their nature.
Palmer, Martha, Gildea, David, and Kingsbury, Paul. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics , 31(1): 71–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin, and Lewis, C. To appear. Derivational order in syntax: Evidence and architectural consequences. In Directions in Derivations , C. Chesi (Ed.). Elsevier. DOI logo
Pickering, Martin, and Ferreira, Victor. 2008. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin , 134: 427–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piñango, Maria M., Mack, Jennifer, and Jackendoff, Ray. To appear. Semantic combinatorial processes in argument structure: Evidence from light verbs. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2006 .
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules . New York: Perennial.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. The relation of grammar to cognition: A synopsis. Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing 2 , D. Waltz (Ed.). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Revised version in Talmy,Toward a Cognitive Semantics, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thothathiri, Malathi and Snedeker, Jesse. 2012. The Role of Thematic Roles in Sentence Processing: Evidence from Structural Priming in Young Children. Unpublished Manuscript.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat? Language , 58(4): 753–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 2006. „Ich mach dich Messer“ – Grammatische Produktivität in Kiez-Sprache (‚Kanak Sprak‘). Linguistische Berichte, 207: 245–273.Google Scholar
Winhart, Heike. 2002. Funktionsverbgefüge im Deutschen. Zur Verbindung von Verben und Nominalisierungen. Dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva, and Piñango, Maria M. 2011. Processing light verb constructions. The Mental Lexicon , 393–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva, and Snedeker, Jesse. 2013. It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles. Language and Cognitive Processes, (ahead-of-print), 1–7.Google Scholar
. In preparation. Syntactic Priming Across Constructions: Light Verbs.
Wittenberg, Eva, Paczynski, Martin, Wiese, Heike, Jackendoff, Ray and Kuperberg, Gina. 2014 . The difference between “giving a rose” and “giving a kiss”: Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 73C: 31–42.
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

ÖZGE, Duygu, Gülten ÜNAL & İsa Kerem BAYIRLI
2022. Assigning meaning to light verbs in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 33:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
David, Oana
2021. Chapter 1. Metaphor meets grammar in a radial network of give verbs in Romance. In GiveConstructions across Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 29], ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Kemmerer, David
2019. Concepts in the Brain, DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Конструкции с опорным глаголом в русском и итальянском языках / Support Verb Constructions. A Russian-Italian Contrastive Analysis [Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici, 49], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 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.