Multiword Expressions. An Extremist Approach (Fillmore, Charles J.) (2003)

The annotations
• In this version I include some annotations to cover both

Multiword Expressions: things that I said during the talk and things that I realized
later weren't very clear.
An Extremist Approach • Why did I call this approach "extremist"? I realize now that
it's not as extremist as Ray Jackendoff's position, in which
even memorized poems, familiar phrases from TV
Charles J. Fillmore commercials, and the like, all had to get included in the
lexical knowledge of a speaker. In my case I wanted to
ICSI and UCB include a wide range of grammatical constructions as well
as listable word configurations.
© 2003 Charles Fillmore 1 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 2 / 92
What is a MWE? Innocent Speaker-Hearer
Any linguistic expression involving more The ISH knows

– individual simple lexical units,
than one word that requires an
– the basic head-to-dependent grammatical
interpreter – human or machine – to relations,
have more than the abilities of an – the basic head-to-dependent semantic relations as
determined by the semantic frame of the
"Innocent Speaker-Hearer". governing lexical unit,
– regular and specific rules for realizing these,
– strategies for building a semantic structure out of
all this.
That's all it knows.
1
Dependency Representation The graphs
ISH's knowledge is about • There are other, perhaps more standard, ways of showing
– unitary words and dependency graphs. A common one is to show the
– word-to-word relations. dependency relations with simple points and then to show
That can be represented in dependency diagrams in the linearization with lines pointing down to a text.
– which each node is a word and · ·· ·
– each word-to-word link, i.e., each branch, · · ·
• stands for one of the basic grammatical ·
relations and
• is capable of bearing a frame-based semantic
· · ·
relation to the governor. ·
My parents gave me a copy of that fascinating book about frogs
Here's a simple case: Basic syntactic relations
His parents gave me a copy of that

fascinating book about frogs. Complementation
– some governors require particular kinds of
gave
dependents
parents me copy Specification
his a of Modification
book
that fascinating about (there are others)
frogs
2
The blue lines Complementation
His parents gave me a copy of that
• Each blue line in the graphs which follow identify the kind
of dependency relation named in the slide's heading. fascinating book about frogs.
gave Actually, copy of should

parents me copy be treated as a MWE.
his a of
book
that fascinating about
frogs
Specification Modification
His parents gave me a copy of that His parents gave me a copy of that
fascinating book about frogs. fascinating book about frogs.
gave gave
parents me copy parents me copy
his a of his a of
Actually his can also be book book
thought of as satisfying
a frame requirement of that fascinating about that fascinating about
the relational noun parents. frogs frogs
3
So ... Where the ISH idealization fails
The study of MWEs can begin with an 1. Some apparent MWEs are best analyzed as
examination of meaning units of the single words, occupying one node.
language that do not lend themselves 2. Some MWEs can be represented as
to such a simple treatment. dependency subgraphs (not "just" word
strings, or collocate sets).
3. Some MWEs are the product of "non-core"
semi-independent mini-grammars (e.g.,
personal names, number words or the
phrases we use for telling clock time).
Some motivation Where the ISH idealization fails
• The highlighted passage in the next slide - a repetition of the preceding 1. Some apparent MWEs are best analyzed as
slide - is in reference to work on multiword entities that has not been
sensitive to grammatical relations. Early on the search for simple single words, occupying one node.
contiguous strings of words was seen as inadequate (many MWEs can
be interrupted) and attention was given rather to collocations, words
2. Some MWEs can be represented as
that co-occur in statistically significant ways. In such work the dependency subgraphs (not "just" word
emphasis was on choosing a "span" within which significant collocates strings, or collocate sets).
could be reliably found, in general recognizing that they at least have
to be in the same sentence. This paper emphasizes the specific kinds of 3. Some MWEs are the product of "non-core"
grammatical relations that collocates have to have with each other to semi-independent mini-grammars (e.g.,
be linguistically significant.
personal names, number words or the
phrases we use for telling clock time).
4
Theoretical Issues 1. “Runs"
Headedness There are things that look like MWEs (that are
Relation to the rest of the grammar written as sequences of words), but they have no
How many of them are there? (Jackendoff; Mel'cuk) internal variation and may just as well be thought of
How do we count them? as long words with spaces in them.
Language acquisition Examples
Language typology – used to, let alone, of course, all of a sudden, first off
Role in parole Some are easily mislearned:
How are they represented? – by and large > by in large
– to all intents and purposes > to all intensive purposes
– an arm and a leg > a nominal egg
"Runs" But,
• By "runs" is meant strings of words that have no interruptable I won't talk about certain other kinds of
substructure - they are just run through from beginning to end. Nobody
would interrupt a phrase like "of course" ("of y'know course") or "all semantically penetrable "long words" that
of a sudden" ("all of, well, a sudden") or, in general, any of the other identify very specific entities or concepts;
expressions listed here.
e.g.,
• The fact that many complex runs get reanalyzed means that they are
not learned by building up structures out of their parts, but as wholes; – names of organizations
but, that said, they nevertheless have to be given some kind of analysis, The American Society for the Prevention of
if only because English simply doesn't have many really long words, Cruelty to Animals. (ASPCA)
and also because they need some kind of syntactic structuring for us to
know how to apply stress rules to them. – names of officially designated crimes
assaulting a federal officer with a lethal weapon
5
2. Dependency Subgraphs 2. Dependency Subgraphs
Some MWEs can be analyzed in terms of sets of Some MWEs can be analyzed in terms of sets of nodes
nodes connected to each other through syntactic connected to each other through syntactic head-dependent
relations.
head-dependent relations.
x x x x
x x
y y z y A y y A z y
A z
z
The red and the black 2. Dependency Subgraphs

• We can think of the red parts of these diagrams as the lexical units, and Some MWEs can be analyzed in terms of sets of
the black part as the subcategorization requirements. nodes bearing direct or indirect syntactic head-
dependent relations to each other.
The linearization of the elements of this kind of MWE
may be constrained, or it may be subject to ordinary
syntactic principles.
6
2. Dependency Subgraphs
Some MWEs can be analyzed in terms of sets of
nodes bearing direct or indirect syntactic head-
dependent relations to each other.
The linearization of the elements of this kind of MWE
may be constrained, or it may be subject to ordinary
syntactic principles.
There is no need to see the elements of such a
Subcategorization Details
subgraph as making up a "single constituent" in a
corresponding phrase-structure representation.
Particle Verbs - Intransitive Particle Verbs - Transitive

V
V Verb > particle is the Verb > particle is the
lexical unit. lexical unit.
X Y part
X part Exx: Exx:
wake up, go away, take off ('remove'), take
sit down, shut up, out ('date'),
shut take
Interruptible: Interruptible:
Shut the hell up! Take your shoes off.
X Y off I took her out once.
X up shut
take
shut the_hell up take your shoes off

7
Prepositional Verbs -
In the Old Days ...
Intransitive
V
About half a century ago it was generally believed Verb > preposition is the
that in Deep Structure, phrases like pick up, take off, lexical unit.
etc., started out as single constituents, and a Particle X prep Exx:
Movement Transformation allowed the extraction of look for ('seek'), object to
Y ('oppose'), look into
the particle so that it could follow the direct object. ('investigate')
Interruptible:
[take off] [your shoes] >> [take] [your shoes] [off] look I looked long and hard for
the perfect wife.
We objected strenuously to
A dependency subgraph can recognize the unity of X for her proposal.
the two-word block without worrying about phrasal Comment:
constituency. Y Some PPs are omissible,
some aren't. look (for), look
into
Omissibility PP Omissibility
• It may seem paradoxical that the real form of the lexical unit is Omissible Non-omissible
something like look for but that the for-phrase can be omitted. This can
be more straightforwardly represented in the Construction Grammar (under conditions of
framework - but that's another story. zero anaphora)
Could you look into this

Look at it!
problem for me?
- I'm looking.
- *I've already started
Look for it. looking.
- I'm looking.
8
Prepositional Verbs -
Particle-&-Preposition Verbs
Transitive
V
Verb > preposition is the V Verb > {part,prep} is
lexical unit. the lexical unit.
X Y prep Exx: Exx:
talk into ('persuade'), rid of X part prep put up with ('tolerate'), look
Z Comment: PP is sometimes up to ('respect'), break in on
omissible: Y ('interrupt')
The judge cleared me (of all Not generally interruptible, I
clear charges). think (haven't checked
They tried to talk me *(into put corpus data).
quitting my job).
X of Who will rid me *(of this (But: This is the sort of errant
Y nonsense up with which I
meddlesome priest)? X up with
shall not put.
Z Winston Churchill)
Y
The Churchill quote V+N+P Verbs

• That's supposed to be what Churchill once said in response to an V Verb > /N,prep/ is the
editorial suggestion that he rewrite a sentence that ended with a lexical unit.
preposition. It doesn't really stand as an exception to the generalization Exx:
that V+particle+preposition lexical units aren't interruptible. X N prep take advantage of ('exploit'),
take part in ('participate in'),
Y take charge of
Comments:
take N can be modified; N can be
passive subject:
Considerable advantage was
X part in taken of this opportunity.
Pseudo-passive:
Y They were cruelly taken
advantage of.
N does not take a determiner.
9
V+N+P Verbs Other Parts of Speech
V Verb > /N,prep/ is the
Adjectives can have prepositional and
lexical unit.
Exx: clausal complements:
X N prep take advantage of ('exploit'),
take part in ('participate in'), – fond of cats; interested in math; similar to mud
Y take charge of
Comments:
Nouns can have prepositional and
take N can be modified; N can be causal complements:
passive subject:
Considerable advantage was – top of the tower; friend to the poor; journey into the
X part in taken of this opportunity. jungle; copy of the book
Pseudo-passive:
Y They were cruelly taken
advantage of.
These are getting close to support
N does not take a determiner.
verb constructions. © 2003 Charles Fillmore 37 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 38 / 92
The red boxes

• The red boxes in the next set of slides are supposed to indicate that
these are the words that evoke the semantic frame expressed by the
entire multiword. The support verb, in other words, just comes along
as a way of using the noun as a verb.
Support Constructions
10
Support Verbs with Subject N
V Verb > N is the lexical unit, V Note linearization:

N is semantic head, V is
support verb Since these are
N Exx: N V intransitive, the N is
The wind is blowing, the fire
is burning, the rain is falling, (or heads) the
a riot occurred; an accident subject NP and the
happened
Comment: The frame is verb is the
blow evoked by the noun. The blow predicate.
support verb is selected by
the noun.
wind Compare "the fire is burning" wind blows
with "the house is burning".
Support Verbs with Object N Ditransitive Support Verbs

V V
Verb > N is the lexical unit, N Verb > N is the lexical unit, N is
is semantic head, V is support semantic head, V is support
verb. N has its own valence. verb. X and Y are
X N X Y N
each participants in N's frame.
Exx:
We had an argument with the Exx:
kids. ('we argued with the kids') She gave me a kiss. ('she
I made the decision to leave. kissed me')
('I decided to leave') I paid him a bribe.
Comment: The frame is evoked ('I bribed him')
have by the noun. The SV is selected give They gave me good advice.
by the noun, which also brings ('they advised me well')
in its own complement structure
X argument . X X kiss
Comment: The N doesn't have
with to be deverbal: wage war,
commit a crime
Y © 2003 Charles Fillmore 43 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 44 / 92
11
SVs can resolve polysemy. A common test of SVs:
Polysemous event nouns can take One frequent proposed characteristic of

different support verbs: support verbs is that their nominal object
can’t really be interrogated - meaning that the
– ('quarrel') have an argument
verb in question isn’t functioning as a self-
– ('reason') make an argument standing verb. The following are not natural
conversations:
– ('rest') take a break – What did you heave? - A sigh.
– What have you made? - A decision to go home.
– ('flight') make a break – What did you have? - A fight with my brother.
– What did you wreak? - Vengeance on my enemies.
– What did you lodge? - A complaint.
Interchangeable with Verbs Profiling Different Participants
She heaved a sigh. Agent of event Undergoer of event

(She sighed.)
perform an operation undergo an operation
We made the decision to give up.
inflict injury sustain injury
(We decided to give up.)
I took a bath. exact/wreak vengeance
(I bathed.) have a setback
launch an attack
He suffered a relapse. suffer a defeat
give instructions
(He relapsed.) undergo an operation
submit an application
Let’s say a prayer. ask a question receive a rebuke
(Let’s pray.) get advice
12
Beyond "light verbs" Examples
Simple cases: the verb has essential no meaning Simple, active:
except to reveal that its subject is necessarily a
participant in the event named by the noun. – he made a complaint
– a. active role
Nuanced:
– b. passive role
More nuanced cases: the verb contributes – he registered a complaint
information about register, attitude, aktionsart,
or the like.
More extended cases: the verb identifies its subject
as a participant in the larger scenario associated with
the event named by the verb.
Examples The "extended" cases

• The examples given in red belong to an extended view of the frame
Simple, active: indicated by the noun. That is, the purpose of an examination is to
– she gave an exam evaluate someone's competence in some area: decisions on whether
that competence has been achieve are part of the larger scenario and
Simple, passive: often have special verbs (pass vs. fail here); the purpose of a promise
is a commitment to one person on the part of another to act in a certain
– he took/sat the exam way: expressing success or failure in acting on the promise also
requires separate verb (keep vs. break in this case).
13
Examples Examples
Simple, active: Simple, active:

– she gave an exam – she made a promise
Simple, passive:
– he took/sat the exam
Extended:
– he passed/failed the exam
Examples Unintended omissions.

• All of the examples I've given are ones in which all of the arguments
Simple, active: of a governing verb have to be participants in the event named by the
– she made a promise noun. However, there are also causative support verbs in which the
object is a participant in the frame, but the subject is external to it.
Extended: (Examples?)
• There are verbs whose subjects control the passive (Undergoer)
– she kept/broke her promise participant in the event named by the noun. To deserve consideration,
merit review, etc.
14
For the full story,
and then some, see ...
Support Verbs with Adjective
V
Mel'cuk, Igor' (1995), Phrasemes in language and phraseology Verb > A is the lexical unit,
in linguistics. In M. Everaert et al., Idioms: Structural and A is semantic head, V is
Psychological Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. X A support verb, A may have
Mel'cuk, Igor' (1996), Lexical functions: a tool for the its own complements (e.g.,
description of lexical relations in a lexicon. In Leo Wanner, ed., rid of).
Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language
Processing. John Benjamins. Exx:
be + any predicate adjective;
Mel'cuk, Igor' (1998), Collocations and lexical functions. In get go crazy, turn red, get naked
Cowie 1998
Comment:
Mel'cuk, Igor' (1995), The future of the lexicon in linguistic The unit rid of seems to
description and the explanatory combinatorial dictionary. X naked occur only with a SV.
Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3. 181-270. Hanshin: Seoul
Support Prepositions More Complex Cases

V
Prep > N is the lexical unit, N Verb > P > N is the lexical
P is semantic head, V is support
verb. N has its own valence. unit, N is semantic head, V
Exx:
X Y P is support verb, N is
N at risk, in danger, on fire, under generally not expandable.
scrutiny, under arrest Exx:
N
Some are modifiable: take into account, take under
at considerable risk, in grave
danger, under careful scrutiny
consideration, have in
Comment: The P>N structure take (one's) possession
at functions as an adjective; the N
can have its own complements.
at considerable risk to his X Y under
risk health, in danger of collapse
consideration
15
Support Verbs with PP
V
Verb > P > N is the lexical unit,
N is semantic head, V is
support verb. With
X prep possession there are two
alignments of the arguments:
N Possessor - Possessed
come
I came into possession of
these documents. Transparent Nouns
Possessed - Possessor
X into
These documents have come
into my possession.
possession
N of N Those two types

N N
N > of is the lexical unit, The • The left and right examples in the preceding slide are supposed to
second N is semantic head for indicate two different kinds of situations: in the one on the left we have
of of purposes of external selection.
uses of transparent nouns where there are no restrictions on the kinds
Comment: sometimes the N >
of is "transparent" to the pieces
of nouns that can occur in dependent position; in the one on the left we
N N have transparent nouns where the dependent nouns have preferred
of an MWE; and sometimes the
N > of > N is itself an MWE, governors. These tend to be aggregates (school of fish, flock of geese)
especially in the case of or units (stick of gum, slice of bread).
aggregates and unitizers:
type bout – a case of the flu
– a round of golf
of of – a herd of cattle
– a flock of geese
– a school of fish
fish flu – a pinch of salt
– a pod of whales
16
Types of transparent nouns "Transparency"
1. Aggregates
bunch, group, collection, herd, school, flock • The term, I think, is from Naomi Sager.
2. Quantities • The idea is that the dependent noun - the second noun in a N+of+N
flood, number, scores, storm phrase - has certain selectional relations to the external context of the
phrase; the contextual pattern can be noticed by "seeing through" the
3. Types
transparent noun.
breed, class, ilk, kind, type, sort
• The first example on the next page does not involve an MWE, but we
4. Portions and Parts can at least notice that the locative prepositions in and on go with
half, segment, top, bottom, part nouns of particular semantic types (in with a volume and on with a
5. Unitizers surface, for example), and this is independent of whether there's an
glass, bottle, box, serving expression like part of between the preposition and its preferred
6. Evaluations collocate.
gem, idiot, prince
"Transparent" to what? "Transparent" to what?

Relation between locative preposition and object: Relation between typical subject and verb:
– on the shelf; on this part of the shelf – water would quench my thirst;
– in the room; in this part of the room a bit of water would quench my thirst
Relation between verb and typical collocating object Relation between typical modifier and noun head:
– play golf; play a round of golf – a fine mess; now that's a fine sort of mess
– eat fish; eat this type of fish – nice hot coffee; a nice hot cup of coffee
Relation between possessor and kin-term
– my wife; my gem of a wife
– her husband; her jerk of a husband
17
N > N Compounds
N N
N > N is the lexical unit; listed
compounds have the dependent
in red; the syntactic head is the
frame evoker, the dependent is
N N either a frame element or a
"quale". The order is Modifier +
Head.
Compounds risk knife
health fish
The compounds N+N Compounds

• There is a world of things to say about compounds. Here I Some are just listed, their internal structure of
was only interested in cases where there's no regular etymological relevance only. (What's the head of light
analysis between the two pieces, cases where there is year? Often misused: "that was light years ago".)
something regular to say about the relationship between – light year, puppy love, (wenige Fußminuten?)
the two parts yet the result names a pre-existing category, Some are listed, with N2 as the head, N1 as satisfier
and cases in which the compound consists in having the of some requirement of N2; name pre-existing
first noun satisfy a frame requirement in the second noun. category.
• I thought that light year was a very strange compound, and – bread knife, wine bottle, cork screw
I still think there's nothing else quite like it in English; but
in the last few days I found Fußminuten and Autostunden, Some are interpretable with reference to completion
as measure of distance in German, and they do seem to needs of N2.
join with light year (Lichtjahr) in establishing a pattern. – fire risk, health risk, travel risks
18
A-N Compounds "Pertinative" adjectives
N N
N > A is the lexical unit; listed Pertinatives are adjectives whose senses are
compounds have the dependent
in red; the syntactic head is the defined in (some) dictionaries with the phrase "of or
frame evoker, the dependent is pertaining to". Traditional term: relational adjectives.
A A either a frame element or a WordNet term: pertainyms.
"quale".
Ready-made A+P compounds: They are not used predicatively in the same meaning.
hot news, friendly fire, blind They aren't scalar, e.g., they don't get modified with
police news alley, dead end
very.
federal hot
Pertinatives vs. Descriptives

judicial appointment judicious appointment
economic policy economical housewife
educational practice educational experience
criminal law criminal behavior
linguistic society ugly cat Mini-Grammars

Canadian government amazing disclosure
national interest bored child
these are MWEs these aren't
19
3. Minigrammars Personal Names
Some MWEs are generated by simple Reverend Dr T. Allen Hampton-Smith III
generative structures, usually finite state Components: titles, honorifics, given names,
automata, for which dependency – or patronymics, family names, extensions, ...
constituency – representations are not always It would be best if names could be "sealed":
relevant. handed over to the grammar with a category
– Names name and nothing else
– Numbers
Sometimes personal names are penetrable.
– Locations (addresses, coordinates)
(Croatian)
– Time Expressions
– Marko je Ivir zubar.
– Kinterms
– *Patrick is Hanks lexicographer.
– Miscellaneous constructions
English Kinterms siblings
grandfather, great grandfather, great X

great grandfather, etc.
A B
first cousin, second cousin, third cousin
first cousin once removed, second C D
cousin three times removed, etc.
E F
father-in-law, son-in-law, sister-in-law,
etc. G H
20
cousins second cousins
X X
A B A B
C D C D
E F E F
G H G H
first cousins once removed first cousins twice removed

X X
A B A B
C D C D
E F E F
G H G H
21
Digression Self-indulgence
Ordinary techniques of computational • This is just a bit of self-indulgence. In the full write-up of
this paper I want to give a lot of attention to special
linguistics/corpus linguistics won't be grammatical constructions, and this unusual pattern with
able to recognize the constructional an indefinite determiner and a plural noun - with the
nature of some expressions. requirement that there be both some kind of qualifier and a
quantity (usually number) seemed strange, in the first
Test case place, and frequently hidden from view by the way we
express numbered units of currency (e.g., by putting the
another $600 "$" before the number while pronouncing it after the
number).
Indefinite article Qualifier Number Plural Noun Indefinite article Qualifier Number Plural Noun
a whopping 600 dollars a whopping 600 dollars

an additional 10 pages an additional 10 pages
a paltry 20 euros a paltry 20 euros
a respectable 6,000 francs a respectable 6,000 francs
*a mere - pages *a mere - pages
*a - 12 pages *a - 12 pages
But now what do we do with "another $600"?

We have to unpack it as "an other 600 $"!
22
Continuity Hypothesis Why this?
I assume the continuity of the lexicon and the • Here the point is that in dealing with lexically headed
constructicon. special grammatical constructions, Kay and I have often
found that they can be described in pretty much the same
Reference: Paul Kay & Charles J. Fillmore way as complex lexical items with contextual constraints
(1999), "Grammatical constructions and that are pretty much like what you get with ordinary
linguistic generalizations: the What's X Doing words. The full force of the "continuity hypothesis" is that
Y? construction", Language 75 1-33. from highly specific lexical items to maximally general
grammatical patterns, there are always simple head-to-
Claim: many lexically-headed constructions dependency relations of the kind mentioned in this paper.
can be analyzed as dependency subtrees.
be is finite (not quite true)

be Y is secondary predicate,
X doing i.e.
AP
Bottom Line
with absolute
what Y
participial Lexical units can be represented as dependency
locative phrase subgraphs, specifying a semantic head, a syntactic
Meaning: X is Y, and that is anomalous. head, required/preferred dependents.
Constraints on dependents can be specified lexically,
Different linearizations and interruptions: sortally, morphosyntactically, and in terms of frame
roles.
What are you doing here? (be before X) Dependents can be marked as "closed" (not open to
I wonder what she's doing wearing her mother's dress. (X before be) modification) and/or "local" (not subject to extraction)
and/or "omissible".
What the hell are you still doing standing out there in the rain?
(various interruptions) The lexical head of the construction bears information
about contextual constraints: finiteness, inflection,
What are you doing without any shoes on?
polarity, etc.
23

Multiword Expressions. An Extremist Approach (Fillmore, Charles J.) (2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multiword Expressions. An Extremist Approach (Fillmore, Charles J.) (2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The annotations

• In this version I include some annotations to cover both

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 1 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 2 / 92

What is a MWE? Innocent Speaker-Hearer

Any linguistic expression involving more The ISH knows

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 5 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 6 / 92

Here's a simple case: Basic syntactic relations

His parents gave me a copy of that

gave Actually, copy of should

Some motivation Where the ISH idealization fails

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 17 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 18 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 19 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 20 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 21 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 22 / 92

The red and the black 2. Dependency Subgraphs

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 23 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 24 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 25 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 26 / 92

Particle Verbs - Intransitive Particle Verbs - Transitive

shut the_hell up take your shoes off

Could you look into this

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 31 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 32 / 92

The Churchill quote V+N+P Verbs

The red boxes

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 39 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 40 / 92

V Verb > N is the lexical unit, V Note linearization:

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 41 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 42 / 92

Support Verbs with Object N Ditransitive Support Verbs

Polysemous event nouns can take One frequent proposed characteristic of

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 45 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 46 / 92

Interchangeable with Verbs Profiling Different Participants

She heaved a sigh. Agent of event Undergoer of event

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 47 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 48 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 49 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 50 / 92

Examples The "extended" cases

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 51 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 52 / 92

Simple, active: Simple, active:

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 53 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 54 / 92

Examples Unintended omissions.

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 55 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 56 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 57 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 58 / 92

Support Prepositions More Complex Cases

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 61 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 62 / 92

N of N Those two types

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 63 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 64 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 65 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 66 / 92

"Transparent" to what? "Transparent" to what?

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 67 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 68 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 69 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 70 / 92

The compounds N+N Compounds

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 71 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 72 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 73 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 74 / 92

Pertinatives vs. Descriptives

linguistic society ugly cat Mini-Grammars

these are MWEs these aren't

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 75 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 76 / 92

English Kinterms siblings

grandfather, great grandfather, great X

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 79 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 80 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 81 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 82 / 92

first cousins once removed first cousins twice removed

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 83 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 84 / 92

© 2003 Charles Fillmore 85 / 92 © 2003 Charles Fillmore 86 / 92

a whopping 600 dollars a whopping 600 dollars

But now what do we do with "another $600"?