Laura A. Michaelis

Toward a Construction-Based Theory of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition.

Through a detailed examination of a particular sentence type, we outline a formal model in which grammatical description includes the description of use conditions on form-meaning pairs. The sentence type at issue is an exclamative construction we refer to as Nominal Extraposition (NE). This construction, exemplified by the sentence Its AMAZING the DIFFERENCE, bears a superficial resemblance to Right Dislocation (RD). However, NE must be distinguished from RD on syntactic, semantic and discoursepragmatic grounds. The postpredicate NP represents a TOPIC in the case of RD, a FOCUS in the case of NE; this NP receives a metonymic scalar interpretation in the case of NE, but not in RD. We employ the framework of Construction Grammar and seek to demonstrate that it is uniquely suited to grammatical description of the type required here: NE represents a gestaltlike interaction of formal, semantic and pragmatic constraints. We argue for a compatible formalism akin to that found in recent versions of Lexical-Functional Grammar in which argument structure and syntactic constituency parallel a level of representation incorporating categories of INFORMATION STRUCTURE. In addition, we seek to validate the notion-central to Construction Grammar that sentence types are a crucial basis for syntactic description. In particular, we argue that NE is an instance of the exclamative sentence type and that basic formal and semantic properties of NE follow from this categorization. We suggest that the relationship between NE and like exclamatives can be represented in an INHERITANCE NETWORK.

Distinguishing Deceptive from Non-Deceptive Speech

To date, studies of deceptive speech have largely been confined to descriptive studies and observations from subjects, researchers, or practitioners, with few empirical studies of the specific lexical or acoustic/prosodic features which may characterize deceptive speech. We present results from a study seeking to distinguish deceptive from non-deceptive speech using machine learning techniques on features extracted from a large corpus of deceptive and non-deceptive speech. This corpus employs an interview paradigm that includes subject reports of truth vs. lie at multiple temporal scales. We present current results comparing the performance of acoustic/prosodic, lexical, and speaker-dependent features and discuss future research directions.

Topicalization and left-dislocation: a functional opposition revisited☆

Abstract In this case study, we use conversational data from the Switchboard corpus to investigate the functional opposition between two pragmatically specialized constructions of English: Topicalization and Left-Dislocation. Specifically, we use distribution trends in the Switchboard corpus to revise several conclusions reached by Prince (1981a,b, 1997) concerning the function of Left-Dislocation. While Prince holds that Left-Dislocation has no unitary functionn, we argue that the distinct uses of the construction identified by Prince can be subsumed under the general function of topic promotion. While Prince holds that Topicalization is a more pragmatically specialized construction than Left-Dislocation, we argue that Left-Dislocation has equally restrictive and distinct use conditions, which reflect its status as a topic-promoting device. We conclude that computational corpus methods provide an important check on the validity of claims concerning pragmatic markedness.

The Ambiguity of the English Present Perfect.

This study examines grammatical and discourse-pragmatic reflexes of the existential and resultative readings of the English present perfect. I present both negative and positive arguments in favor of the claim that the present perfect is ambiguous (rather than vague) with respect to these readings. In particular, I argue that the resultative present-perfect represents a formal idiom: a morphosyntactic form characterized by idiosyncratic constraints upon grammar, meaning and use. Certain constraints upon the resultative present-perfect, in particular that which prevents it from denoting a pragmatically presupposed event proposition, can be MOTIVATED with respect to a discourse-pragmatic opposition involving the preterite. However, such constraints cannot be PREDICTED from functional oppositions or any general semantic principles. Finally, I suggest that mastery of aspectual grammar crucially entails knowledge of such idiomatic form-meaning pairings.

Stative by construction

Abstract Fundamental to narrative is the ability to indicate what events overlapped what other events. Crucial to this ability is stativization: only stative situations can include (as opposed to being included within) reference time. But how exactly are stative type-shifts effected, and what does it mean for an event to be “turned into” a state? There are two purported paths to stativity: use of a compositional type-shifting device, as exemplified by (i), and coercion, the creation of resolvable semantic conflict between a combinatoric pattern and an openclass word, as exemplified by (ii): (i) The House is voting on the legislation. (ii) We talk on the phone every Sunday What is the trigger for stative coercion in (ii)? According to de Swart (Natural language and linguistic theory 16: 347–385, 1998, Coercion in a cross-linguistic theory of aspect, CSLI Publications, 2003) and others, it would be the iterative adverbial every Saturday. But iteration is insufficient to secure stativity, as, e.g., activity verbs, which also consist of repeated actions, denote events rather than states. The stativity of progressive sentences is likewise mysterious under the standard analysis: while the progressive is typically said to highlight the pre-culmination portion of an event representation (Parsons, Events in the semantics of English, MIT Press, 1990; Langacker, Foundations of cognitive grammar, Stanford University Press, 1987; Smith, The parameter of aspect, Kluwer, 1997), that portion is presumably an activity rather than a state. To resolve these paradoxes, I propose a selection-based model of two kinds of stative type-shifts: those effected by derivational means (e.g., the progressive construction) and those effected by inflectional means (e.g., the English present tense). I then provide a formal representation of the relevant constructions using conventions of Sign Based Construction Grammar (SBCG) (Sag, Language 6: 486–545, 2010, Michaelis forthcoming). According to this model, stativizing constructions both denote states and select states in the Aktionsart representations of verbs with which they combine. This model relies on the existence of rests, periods of stasis entailed by the Aktionsart representations of dynamic verbs. I argue that by viewing stative typeshifts as the products of construction-verb combination, we can explain: (i) the relationship between a verbs input and output representations, (ii) how tense inflections affect the Aktionsart representations of verbs with which they combine and (iii) the functions of the so-called relative past tense. In addition, I argue, that if we view stative type shifts as functions of constructions, rather than, say, the products of semantic rules, we can better understand differences in the combinatoric potential of a given tense inflection both across languages and over historic time.

‘Continuity’ within Three Scalar Models: The Polysemy of Adverbial Still

This study represents an elaboration and revision of Konigs account of the synchronic interrelations among three senses of the English adverbial still. These senses at issue are those in which still serves as a marker of a states continuation to a temporal reference point, as a concessive particle, and as an indicator of marginal membership within a graded category. The A. argues that the three semantically and grammatically distinct senses can be reconciled by the modern speaker: the lexeme still has an abstract meaning compatible with three types of scalar models

Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling

Abstract Many linguists have observed the emergence of the nonstandard English construction instantiated by the following sentence: “Now the problem is // is that nobody’s going to invade anybody else’s boundaries”. In this pattern (which we will refer to as ISIS), a clausal complement is preceded by two finite forms of the copula, the first of which is typically prosodically prominent and followed by a major intonational break. While Massam (1999), among others, views ISIS as a variant of Pseudocleft, we see two problems with this approach. First, there are distributional and discourse-pragmatic properties that distinguish ISIS from Pseudocleft, including the referential status of the subject NP and the topic-focus articulation of the clause. We will argue that ISIS, rather than being an instance of the Pseudocleft pattern, is a syntactic amalgam that is closely related to an appositive pattern that we will refer to as Hypotactic Apposition, e. g., That’s the real problem is that you never really know. Second, the Massam analysis fails to explain why a speaker would select ISIS over a simpler and more compositional alternative construction, which we will refer to as Simplex: The problem is // there’s nothing else to buy. Using prosodically labeled data from the Switchboard corpus, we show that this choice involves optimization: Simplex has prosodic defects that ISIS repairs. In Simplex tokens the copula is typically followed by a break, creating misalignment of prosodic and syntactic phrases (Croft 1995; Watson and Gibson 2003); it is also typically prosodically prominent, although function words otherwise receive prominence only by deflection of accent from a discourse-old complement (Ladd 1995). While the Simplex copula performs double duty (as focus marker and as VP head) ISIS allocates these functions to the two respective copulas. Nevertheless, ISIS is far rarer than Simplex. If we view ISIS as a repair strategy, rather than a mere overgeneralization of the Pseudocleft pattern, this fact makes sense.

NSM and cognitive-functional models of grammar

Abstract The Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach articulated by Uwe Durst is a componential theory of meaning, and it inherits many of the strengths of such theories. This is especially evident when we compare NSM with componential models that share its view of linguistic cognition as a reflex of the human meaning-making capacity in general. One such strength is the models ability to account for prototype effects in categorization judgments without assuming scalar category membership or fuzzy category boundaries. Durst argues (section 3.3) that “[s]ince meaning is more than reference, one cannot conclude from referential fuzziness or vagueness that the meanings of words are fuzzy or vague as well”. The view is reminiscent of Lakoffs (1987) radial model of category structure, in which prototypicality ratings reflect not category structure but divergence of cognitive submodels that jointly define the best exemplars. Another strength of NSM that can likewise be traced to its decompositional base is its ability to capture cross-linguistic differences in lexical conflation patterns, as exemplified by Dursts comparison of words denoting anger in a variety of languages (section 3.3). Similarities and differences among the cognate words are captured by partial overlaps in their propositional representations, and what emerges is a relatively constrained picture of the range of typological variation. This is a strength that NSM shares with Talmys (1985) model of motion-verb lexicalization patterns: these models allow otherwise ineffable translation problems to be described in rigorous ways. Just as Talmys model enables us to talk about rhetorical-style differences among languages (or language families) by reference to fundamental features of event schematization (Slobin 1996), so the NSM approach captures ‘connotational’ differences among cognate lexical items that have been neglected in denotation-based lexicography.

Aspect and the semantics-pragmatics interface: The case of already

Abstract This study portrays the English adverb already as a pragmatically ambiguous marker of temporal priority. The adverb codes the existence of a state of affairs at a reference time, prior to a reference interval containing a like type. This reference interval is unlinked to any reference time, and hence lexically underspecified. Such underspecification allows for varying contextually evoked interpretations; already has a variety of uses in context. Instances of these uses, and of the discourse contexts from which they are adduced, are discussed. Already is held to represent a contextual operator, i.e., an aspectual construct whose description requires reference to both semantic and discourse-pragmatic structure.

Valence Creation and the German Applicative: the Inherent Semantics of Linking Patterns

We provide a unified account of semantic effects observable in attested examples of the German applicative (‘be-’) construction, e.g. Rollstuhlfahrer Poul Sehachsen aus Kopenhagen will den 1997 erschienenen Wegweiser Handiguide Europa fortfuhren und zusammen mit Movado Berlin berollen (‘Wheelchair user Poul Schacksen from Copenhagen wants to continue the guide ‘Handiguide Europe’, which came out in 1997, and roll Berlin together with Movado.’). We argue that these effects do not come from lexico-semantic operations on ‘input’ verbs, but are instead the products of a reconciliation procedure in which the meaning of the verb is integrated into the event-structure schema denoted by the applicative construction. We analyze the applicative pattern as an argument-structure construction, in terms of Goldberg (1995). We contrast this approach with that of Brinkmann (1997), in which properties associated with the applicative pattern (e.g. omissibility of the theme argument, holistic interpretation of the goal argument, and planar construal of the location argument) are attributed to general semantico-pragmatic principles. We undermine the generality of the principles as stated, and assert that these properties are instead construction-particular. We further argue that the constructional account provides an elegant model of the valence-creation and valence-augmentation functions of the prefix. We describe the constructional semantics as prototype-based: diverse implications of fee-predications, including iteration, transfer, affectedness, intensity and saturation, derive via regular patterns of semantic extension from the topological concept of coverage.