4.2 Article

It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles

Journal

LANGUAGE COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 635-641

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2013.831918

Keywords

events; argument structure; conceptualization; sorting task; syntax; semantics; light-verb constructions

Funding

  1. NSF Grant [0921012]
  2. German National Academic Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Language is characterised by broad and predictable mappings between meaning and syntactic form. Transitive sentences typically encode two-participant events while ditransitives typically encode three-participant events. Light-verb constructions, however, systematically violate these mappings; for example, some have ditransitive syntax ('Romeo is giving Juliet a kiss') but describe what appear to be agent-patient events (Romeo kissing Juliet). We used a conceptual sorting task to explore whether this non-canonical mapping influenced the interpretation of these sentences. Participants were trained to sort events by the number of thematic roles they encoded. After a training phase with only pictures, they sorted a mix of pictures and written sentences, including transitive agent-patient sentences, ditransitive source-theme-goal sentences and ditransitive light-verb constructions. Events described by light-verb constructions were most often grouped with agent-patient events but were sometimes grouped with source-theme-goal events. A control condition using the transitive/intransitive alternation for joint action verbs (e. g., 'meet') demonstrates that this is not attributable to misconstruing the task as syntactic sorting. We conclude that non-canonical mappings between meaning and form can affect event construal, but syntactic form does not solely determine the construal that is chosen.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available