Building a lexical database to investigate the semantics of French deverbal nouns
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Building a lexical database to investigate the
semantics of French deverbal nouns
Richard Huyghe
University of Fribourg (Switzerland)
DeriMo 2021 – 10.10.21
1/46Introduction
1. Morphosemantic issues
1.1. Semantic diversity
1.2. Cross-categorial properties
1.3. Affix polyfunctionality and rivalry
2. Creation of a database
2.1. Data sampling
2.2. Semantic description
3. A case study of lexical aspect through nominalization
3.1. The Aspect Preservation Hypothesis
3.2. Describing neologisms in -age, -ion, -ment
3.3. Observed results
3.4. Predicting (non-)preservation
Conclusion
2/46Introduction
I Because of their grammatical complexity, deverbal nouns
(DNs) have long challenged linguistic theory
I Many studies have been devoted to the syntactic aspects of
nominalization (Lees 1960; Chomsky 1970; Hoekstra 1986; Grimshaw 1990;
Siloni 1997; Alexiadou 2001; Borer 2003; Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003; a.o.).
I Research about the morphosemantic properties of DNs has
developed more recently (Booij 1986; Gaeta 2000; Namer and Villoing
2008; Fradin 2016; Lieber 2016; Plag et al. 2018; Wauquier et al. 2018; Varvara
et al. 2021; a.o.)
I Extensive analyses of the semantic properties of DNs require
lexical resources that provide in-depth systemized information
I The aim of this talk is to present the design of a database
created to investigate the semantics of French DNs, and
provide an example of the exploitation of such a database
3/46Outline
1. Morphosemantic issues
2. Creation of a database
3. A case study of lexical aspect through nominalization
(Joint work with A. Lombard, J. Salvadori & S. Schwab, U. Fribourg)
4/46Introduction
1. Morphosemantic issues
1.1. Semantic diversity
1.2. Cross-categorial properties
1.3. Affix polyfunctionality and rivalry
2. Creation of a database
2.1. Data sampling
2.2. Semantic description
3. A case study of lexical aspect through nominalization
3.1. The Aspect Preservation Hypothesis
3.2. Describing neologisms in -age, -ion, -ment
3.3. Observed results
3.4. Predicting (non-)preservation
Conclusion
5/461.1. Semantic diversity
Q: How can we describe the semantic diversity of DNs (beyond
the entity/eventuality distinction), and what is the exact
contribution of morphology to DNs’ semantics?
I Detailed classifications of DNs have been proposed (Fradin 2012;
Kawaletz and Plag 2015; Lieber 2016), but with questionable
variations and di↵erent lexical coverage
I To ensure a broad application, the semantic analysis of DNs
should be based on a general classification of nouns
I Semantic classes should rely on explicit definitions and
linguistic criteria
6/461.1. Semantic diversity
I The semantic description of DNs requires a clear distinction
between:
- derivational semantics, i.e. the semantic operations associated
with morphological processes, and
- lexical semantics, i.e. the semantics of established words in the
lexicon
I Derivational semantics is underspecified wrt lexical semantics,
and it may be difficult to identify the semantic outcome of
morphological processes
Ex. Does the collective component of meaning in dortoir ’dormitory’
(vs. chambre ‘bedroom’) and tuerie ’slaughter’ (vs. meurtre
‘murder’) result from derivation?
I The distinction between derivational and lexical semantics can
only be determined through extended observations of DNs
7/461.2. Cross-categorial properties
Q: To what extent do DNs inherit the semantic properties of their
base verbs, which properties are (not) preserved, and why?
I When DNs denote eventualities, the preservation of lexical
aspect and semantic role assignment can be investigated
I The cross-categorial transfer of semantic properties is not
always transparent (Haas et al. 2008), and it can be asked how
regular is semantic non-preservation
I When DNs denote entities, the nominalization of verbal
arguments can be discussed
Ex. Attaquant ‘attacker’ nominalizes the agentive argument of attaquer
‘attack’, whereas buvette ‘refreshment bar’ as a locative
nominalization does not correspond to any argument of boire ‘drink’
8/461.3. Affix polyfunctionality and rivalry
Q: How can we account for the many-to-many relations between
affixes and the meaning of DNs?
Suffix: -ment
Types: event (avortement ‘abortion’)
state (énervement ‘irritation’)
agent (gouvernement ‘governement’)
instrument (déguisement ‘costume’)
location (logement ‘accommodation’)
...
Type: instrument
Suffixes: -ail (éventail ‘fan’)
-et (jouet ‘toy’)
-eur (aspirateur ‘vacuum cleaner’)
-oir (hachoir ‘mincer’)
-ure (couverture ‘blanket’)
...
9/461.3. Affix polyfunctionality and rivalry
I Detailed information should be provided about the possible
semantic outputs for each suffix and their frequency
I When a suffix is associated with distinct outputs, it should be
determined whether these are primary or secondary outputs,
because of possible figurative extension (Ferret and Villoing 2015)
Derivation Lexical figure
V1 → N1 V1 → N1
↓
V1 → N2 N2
Ex. The formation of collective agent nouns in -ion (rébellion ‘rebellion’,
rédaction ‘editorial board’, administration ‘administration’) seems
only possible for nouns with an event meaning, making the existence
of a deverbal pattern in -ion forming agent nouns uncertain
I The existence of complex derivational types could be assumed
in the case of figurative extension, if a given semantic
extension is only attested for some suffixes
10/461.3. Affix polyfunctionality and rivalry
I Di↵erences of semantic functionality between nominalizing
suffixes should be examined to evaluate their rivalry
I The degree of suffix rivalry can vary according to:
(i) the existence of di↵erences between similar semantic functions
(ii) the number of functions shared between polyfunctional suffixes
(iii) the actualization frequency of shared functions
Ex. -ion (habitation ‘house’) and -erie (distillerie ‘distillery’) compete to
derive locative nouns, but their degree of rivalry may be low if -ion
as opposed to -erie infrequently forms locative DNs
11/46Introduction
1. Morphosemantic issues
1.1. Semantic diversity
1.2. Cross-categorial properties
1.3. Affix polyfunctionality and rivalry
2. Creation of a database
2.1. Data sampling
2.2. Semantic description
3. A case study of lexical aspect through nominalization
3.1. The Aspect Preservation Hypothesis
3.2. Describing neologisms in -age, -ion, -ment
3.3. Observed results
3.4. Predicting (non-)preservation
Conclusion
12/462.1. Data sampling
I The sample of DNs is based on words extracted from the
FRCOW16A web corpus (10.8 billion tokens) (Schäfer 2015;
Schäfer and Bildhauer 2012)
I Nouns are automatically extracted provided that they are
formally related to a verb from the corpus in an apparently
suffixed or converted form, considering:
- 41 suffixes and 4 forms of conversion
- regular allomorphy
I Candidates are manually filtered to select pairs in which there
is a semantic relation between at least one meaning of V and
one meaning of N
13/462.1. Data sampling
I Cases of double analyzability wrt base selection are included if
a deverbal pattern is instantiated by at least two monosemous
nouns
Ex. The existence of causer ‘chat’ ! causette ‘chat’ and ronfler
‘snore’ ! ronflette ‘nap’ ensures the analyzability of grimpette
‘climb’ (which could be derived from the noun grimpe
‘climbing’) as possibly derived from the verb grimper ‘climb’
I The sampling of V-N pairs is performed in two stages
St.1 Exhaustive filtering for weakly productive deverbal processes
(e.g. suffixation in -ade, -ail, -ard, -is, -ette, conversion from
verb stems in -at)
St.2 Random selection across frequency ranges for remaining types
(e.g. suffixation in -age, -eur, -ion, -ment, -ure, conversion
from participial verb forms)
I The goal is to obtain a sample of 4,000 V-N pairs (ongoing
sampling process)
14/462.2. Semantic description
I Sampled verb-noun pairs are described with respect to:
- nominal semantic type
- verbal and nominal aspectual properties
- verbal and nominal role-assigning properties
I The semantic description is based on controlled manual
annotation and explicit definitions of the annotated properties
(Salvadori et al. 2021)
I To account for lexical ambiguity, the di↵erent meanings of
verbs and nouns are distinguished
I Ambiguous nouns are assigned one entry per meaning in the
database
I Lexical ambiguity is identified through the variation of at least
one annotated semantic property
I Verbal and nominal lexemes are paired based on closest
semantic proximity
15/462.2. Semantic description
I Ontological and relational properties are separated to
appropriately describe nominal semantic types
I Ontological types relate to the nature of the referents
I Relational types depend on the semantic relation with the base
I Ontological and relational types are at least partly independent
(1) bâtir ‘build’ ! bâtiment ‘building’ [artifact-result]
raser ‘shave’ ! rasoir ‘razor’ [artifact-instrument]
garer ‘park’ ! garage ‘garage’ [artifact-location]
(2) bâtir ‘build’ ! bâtiment ‘building’ [artifact-result]
énerver ‘irritate’ ! énervement ‘irritation’ [state-result]
traduire ‘translate’ ! traduction ‘translation’ [cognitive-result]
16/462.2. Semantic description
I 14 ontological simple types are distinguished based on
distributional properties (Godard and Jayez 1996; Flaux and
Van de Velde 2000; Haas et al. submitted)
I Simple types may combine to form complex types, allowing for
type co-predication (Cruse 1995; Pustejovsky 1995; Asher 2011; Dölling
2021; a.o.)
I Relational types are based on the set of semantic roles used to
annotate arguments
I 17 semantic roles are defined and adapted from the sets of
roles used in Verbnet (Kipper-Schuler 2005) and Lirics (Petukhova
and Bunt 2008)
17/462.2. Semantic description
I The lexical aspect of verbs and nouns is decomposed into 4
basic features: dynamicity, durativity, telicity, post-phase
I Aspectual properties are analyzed using linguistic tests taken
from the literature (Vendler 1967; Dowty 1979; Rothstein 2004; Filip
2012; a.o.)
I Telicity is encoded by default with a delimited internal
argument, and annotated as variable for degree achievements
(Abusch 1986; Bertinetto and Squartini 1995; Hay et al. 1999; Rothstein 2008)
I Post-phase relates to the possibility of denoting a durative
result state (Piñón 1997, 1999; Apothéloz 2008; Fradin 2011)
(3) Julie {est partie/?est arrivée} pendant deux jours.
‘Julie {left/arrived} for two days’
18/46Introduction
1. Morphosemantic issues
1.1. Semantic diversity
1.2. Cross-categorial properties
1.3. Affix polyfunctionality and rivalry
2. Creation of a database
2.1. Data sampling
2.2. Semantic description
3. A case study of lexical aspect through nominalization
3.1. The Aspect Preservation Hypothesis
3.2. Describing neologisms in -age, -ion, -ment
3.3. Observed results
3.4. Predicting (non-)preservation
Conclusion
19/463.1. The Aspect Preservation Hypothesis
I It is often implicitly assumed that eventuality-denoting
nominalizations inherit the lexical aspect of their bases
I The idea of a cross-categorial transfer of aspect has been
explicitly formulated by Fábregas et al. (2012):
(1) Aspect Preservation Hypothesis (APH)
“The lexical aspect of a verb is preserved under nominalization if
the resulting nominal denotes an eventuality”
I Extended corpus annotation shows that some nominalizations
di↵er from their bases wrt lexical aspect (Balvet et al. 2011)
(4) L’auteur a {imaginé/inventé} une nouvelle forme narrative. [+dyn]
‘The author imagined/invented a new narrative form’
(5) Cette {invention/*imagination} a eu lieu au 20e siècle. [+dyn]
‘This {invention/imagination} occurred in the 20th century’
(6) Cet enfant a beaucoup d’{imagination/*invention}. [–dyn]
‘This child has a great {imagination/invention}’
20/463.1. The Aspect Preservation Hypothesis
I The observed aspectual changes may be caused by
lexicalization (vs. derivation), thus not violating the APH
I To control for the e↵ects of lexicalization, neologisms can be
investigated (Corbin 1987; Plag 1999)
I The present study focuses on neologisms ending in -age, -ion,
-ment, which are among the most productive suffixes used to
form eventuality-denoting nouns in French (Martin 2010; Uth 2010;
Dal et al. 2018; Fradin 2019; Missud and Villoing 2020; Wauquier 2020)
I Two research questions are addressed
I Do eventuality-denoting neologisms in -age, -ion, -ment
preserve the aspectual properties of their base?
I Are there di↵erences between -age, -ion, -ment wrt aspect
preservation?
21/463.2. Describing neologisms in -age, -ion, -ment
I The study is based on words ending in -age(s), -ion(s) and
-ment(s) extracted from FRCOW16A
I Candidate words are filtered automatically using Lexique (New
et al. 2001) and Le↵f (Sagot 2010) as exclusion lists
I Remaining words are randomly ordered; the first 100 nouns
per suffix that satisfy the morphosemantic conditions
described in Sect.2 are selected
I Nouns and verbs are annotated wrt aspectual properties in a
double-blind process and adjudicated with the help of a third
annotator
I The semantic annotation is based on the occurrences in
FRCOW16A complemented with examples taken from the web
I Inter-annotator agreement scores are calculated using Cohen’s
kappa and prevalence-adjusted PABAK (Byrt et al. 1993)
22/463.2. Describing neologisms in -age, -ion, -ment
Observed agreement Kappa PABAK
V Dynamicity 0.98 0.56 0.96
V Durativity 0.86 0.59 0.72
V Telicity 0.82 0.72 0.73
V Post-phase 0.78 0.65 0.67
N Ontological type 0.83 0.77 0.82
N Relational type 0.93 0.78 0.92
N Dynamicity 0.95 0.85 0.92
N Durativity 0.87 0.71 0.80
N Telicity 0.85 0.79 0.80
N Post-phase 0.83 0.73 0.74
Average 0.87 0.72 0.81
Table 1: Inter-annotator agreement
23/463.3. Observed results
I 300 nouns/501 meanings are described in the dataset
(ambiguity rate: 1.67), incl. 52 entity meanings and 449
eventuality meanings
-age -ion -ment
144 161 144
Table 2: Eventuality meanings per suffix
I 35/449 eventuality meanings analyzable as resulting both
from derivation or from a lexical figure are excluded by
default, considering that figurative meanings might bias the
analysis of aspectual preservation
24/463.3. Observed results
I Aspectual discrepancies between V and N are observed in
60/414 cases
-age -ion -ment Average
Preservation 74.8 94.8 84.8 85.5
Table 3: Preservation of aspectual values (%)
I Aspectual discrepancies di↵er according to properties and
suffixes
-age -ion -ment Average
Dynamicity pres. 96.7 98.0 88.4 94.4
Durativity pres. 91.0 99.3 99.2 96.8
Telicity pres. 98.4 100.0 99.2 99.3
Post-phase pres. 80.3 96.7 95.5 91.4
Table 4: Preservation of aspectual values per feature between V and N (%)
25/463.3. Observed results
I Aspectual shifts can be observed for each suffix
I -age is associated with:
- eventualities dropping post-phase
- punctual eventualities becoming durative
- dynamic eventualities becoming stative
Aspectual type of V Aspectual type of N Number Example
Left accomplishment Accomplishment 10/31 transvasage ‘decanting’
Left achievement Accomplishment 9/31 sortage ‘bringing out’
Left achievement Achievement 5/31 déposage ‘dropping o↵’
Activity State 3/31 dégoûtage ‘distaste’
Table 5: Main aspectual shifts in -age V-N derivation
26/463.3. Observed results
I -ion is associated with:
- eventualities dropping post-phase
- dynamic eventualities becoming stative
Aspectual type of V Aspectual type of N Number Example
Activity State 3/8 doutation ‘doubt’
Left accomplishment Accomplishment 2/8 descension ‘descent’
Left achievement Achievement 2/8 expulsation ‘expulsion’
Table 6: Main aspectual shifts in -ion V-N derivation
27/463.3. Observed results
I -ment is associated with:
- dynamic eventualities becoming stative
- eventualities dropping post-phase
Aspectual type of V Aspectual type of N Number Example
Activity State 15/21 jubilement ‘jubilation’
Left accomplishment Accomplishment 3/21 ficellement ‘tying’
Left achievement Achievement 2/21 ajoutement ‘addition’
Table 7: Main aspectual shifts in -ment V-N derivation
28/463.3. Observed results
I Neological and lexicalized nominalizations can be compared
wrt aspectual discrepancies (Balvet et al. 2011)
Preserved asp. Non-preserved asp.
Lexicalized nzn 492 (77.0%) 147 (23.0%)
Neological nzn 352 (78.4%) 97 (21.6%)
Table 8: Aspect preservation in lexicalized vs. neological nominalizations
I Based on equivalent aspectual categories, the comparison
does not show any significant e↵ect of lexicalization on aspect
(non-)preservation ( 2 (1, N = 1088) = 0.297, p = .585)
29/463.4. Predicting (non-)preservation
I The relative influence of various predictors on aspectual
changes can be investigated
I Conditional inference trees and random forests (Tagliamonte and
Baayen 2012; Levshina 2020) can be used to evaluate how multiple
predictors operate together and account for aspectual
(non-)preservation
I The predictors considered are:
- Suffix
- V Dynamicity
- V Durativity
- V Telicity
- V Post-Phase
30/463.4. Predicting (non-)preservation
Figure 1: Preservation vs. non-preservation of aspectual values (accuracy = 0.855)
31/463.4. Predicting (non-)preservation
Figure 2: Conditional importance of variables (accuracy = 0.855)
32/46To sum up
I Lexical aspect is not always preserved through nominalization
as a derivational process
I Aspectual properties are not necessarily inherited from the
verbal domain, but can develop in nominal semantic structures
I Nominalizing suffixes have di↵erent tendencies to (not)
preserve the aspect of the base
I Aspectual properties of verbs, in particular telicity and
post-phase, are fairly good predictors of aspectual shifts
I Theoretical models of nominalization should account for
possible aspectual changes between related verbs and nouns
33/46Introduction
1. Morphosemantic issues
1.1. Semantic diversity
1.2. Cross-categorial properties
1.3. Affix polyfunctionality and rivalry
2. Creation of a database
2.1. Data sampling
2.2. Semantic description
3. A case study of lexical aspect through nominalization
3.1. The Aspect Preservation Hypothesis
3.2. Describing neologisms in -age, -ion, -ment
3.3. Observed results
3.4. Predicting (non-)preservation
Conclusion
34/46Conclusion
I The creation of a database containing detailed semantic
information about DNs should allow a better understanding of
the semantic aspects of derivation, the structure of the
lexicon, and the nature of lexical categories
I Analyses combining qualitative and quantitative approaches
can make a substantial contribution to the study of DNs, and
of the relations between form and meaning in the lexicon
I The methodology developed can be used to compare the
semantics of DNs across languages
I The results obtained may feed research in related fields, such
as computational linguistics, psycholinguistics and philosophy
of language
35/46References I
Abusch, Dorit (1986). Verbs of change, causation and time. Stanford: CSLI report.
Alexiadou, Artemis (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and
Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Apothéloz, Denis (2008). “Entrer quelques instants vs arriver quelques instants: le
problème de la spécification de la durée de l’état résultant”. In: Verbum 30,
pp. 199–219.
Asher, Nicholas (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge
University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511793936.
Balvet, Antonio, Lucie Barque, Marie-Hélène Condette, Pauline Haas,
Richard Huyghe, Rafael Marı́n, and Aurélie Merlo (2011). “La ressource Nomage:
confronter les attentes théoriques aux observations du comportement linguistique
des nominalisations en corpus”. In: TAL 52.3, pp. 129–152.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Mario Squartini (1995). “An attempt at defining the class
of gradual completion verbs”. In: Temporal Reference Aspect and Actionality 1:
Semantics and Syntactic Perspectives. Ed. by Pier Marco Bertinetto,
Valentina Bianchi, James Higginbotham, and Mario Squartini. Torino: Rosenberg
and Sellier, pp. 11–26.
Booij, Geert (1986). “Form and Meaning in Morphology: the Case of Dutch Agent
Nouns”. In: Linguistics 24, pp. 503–517.
Borer, Hagit (2003). “Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections
and the lexicon”. In: The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Ed. by
John Moore and Maria Polinski. Stanford: CLSI Publications, pp. 31–67.
36/46References II
Byrt, Ted, Janet Bishop, and John B Carlin (1993). “Bias, prevalence and kappa”. In:
Journal of clinical epidemiology 46.5, pp. 423–429.
Chomsky, Noam (1970). “Remarks on Nominalization”. In: Readings in English
Transformational Grammar. Ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum.
Boston: Ginn, pp. 184–221.
Corbin, Danielle (1987). Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Cruse, D. Alan (1995). “Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic
viewpoint”. In: Computational Lexical Semantics. Ed. by P. St Dizier and
E. Viegas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–49.
Dal, Georgette, Nabil Hathout, Stéphanie Lignon, Fiammetta Namer, and
Ludovic Tanguy (2018). “Toile versus dictionnaires: Les nominalisations du français
en-age et en-ment”. In: SHS Web of Conferences. Vol. 46. EDP Sciences, p. 08003.
Dölling, Johannes (2021). “Systematic Polysemy”. In: The Wiley Blackwell
Companion to Semantics. Ed. by Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier,
Hotze Rullmann, and Zimmermann Thomas Ede. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley Sons,
Inc. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem099.
Dowty, David R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of
Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D.
Reidel Publishing Company.
37/46References III
Fábregas, Antonio, Rafael Marı́n, and Louise McNally (2012). “From psych verbs to
nouns”. In: Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure.
Ed. by Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 162–184.
Ferret, Karen and Florence Villoing (2015). “French N-age instrumentals: semantic
properties of the base verb”. In: Morphology 25, pp. 473–496.
Filip, Hana (2012). “Lexical aspect”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect.
Ed. by Robert I. Binnick. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flaux, Nelly and Danièle Van de Velde (2000). Les noms en français : esquisse de
classement. Paris: Editions Ophrys.
Fradin, Bernard (2011). “Remarks on state-denoting nominalizations”. In: Recherches
Linguistiques de Vincennes 40, pp. 73–99.
— (2012). “Les nominalisations et la lecture ‘moyen’”. In: Lexique 20, pp. 125–152.
— (2016). “L’interprétation des nominalisations en N-age et N-ment en français”. In:
Actes du XXVIIe congrès international de linguistique et philologie romane. Ed. by
Franz Rainer, Michela Russo, and Fernando Sánchez Miret. Nancy: ATILF,
pp. 53–66.
— (2019). “Competition in derivation: what can we learn from French doublets in-age
and-ment?” In: Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation. Ed. by
Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler, and
Hans Christian Luschützky. Berlin: Springer, pp. 67–93.
38/46References IV
Gaeta, Livio (2000). “On the interaction between morphology and semantics: the
Italian suffix -ata”. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47.1, pp. 205–229.
Godard, Danièle and Jacques Jayez (1996). “Types nominaux et anaphores : le cas des
objets et des événements”. In: Anaphores temporelles et (in-)coherence, Cahiers
Chronos. Ed. by Walter De Mulder, Liliane Tasmowski-De Ryck, and Carl Vetters.
Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 41–58.
Grimshaw, Jane (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Haas, Pauline, Lucie Barque, Richard Huyghe, and Delphine Tribout (submitted).
“Pour une classification sémantique des noms en français appuyée sur des tests
linguistiques”. In:
Haas, Pauline, Richard Huyghe, and Rafael Marı́n (2008). “Du verbe au nom : calques
et décalages aspectuels”. In: Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF
2008. Ed. by Jacques Durand, Benoı̂t Habert, and Bernard Laks. Paris: Institut de
Linguistique Française, pp. 2051–2065.
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy, and Beth Levin (1999). “Scalar structure
underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’”. In: Proceedings of SALT 9. Ed. by
Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications,
pp. 127–144.
Hoekstra, Teun (1986). “Deverbalization and inheritance:” in: 24.3, pp. 549–584. doi:
doi:10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.549. url:
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.549.
39/46References V
Kawaletz, Lea and Ingo Plag (2015). “Predicting the semantics of English
nominalizations: A frame-based analysis of-ment suffixation”. In: Semantics of
complex words. Ed. by Laurie Bauer, Lı́via Körtvélyessy, and Pavol Štekauer.
Berlin: Springer, pp. 289–319.
Kipper-Schuler, Karin (2005). “VerbNet: A broad-coverage, comprehensive verb
lexicon”. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2003). “Action Nominal Constructions in the Languages
of Europe”. In: Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe. Ed. by
Frans Plank. Berlin, pp. 723–759.
Lees, Robert B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague:
Mouton De Gruyter.
Levshina, Natalia (2020). “Conditional inference trees and random forests”. In: A
practical handbook of corpus linguistics. Ed. by Magali Paquot and
Stefan Th. Gries. Berlin: Springer, pp. 611–643.
Lieber, Rochelle (2016). English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Fabienne (2010). “The semantics of eventive suffixes in French”. In: The
Semantics of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Ed. by
Monika Rathert and Artemis Alexiadou. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton,
pp. 109–141.
Missud, Alice and Florence Villoing (2020). “The morphology of rival -ion, -age and
-ment selected verbal bases”. In: Lexique 26, pp. 29–52.
40/46References VI
Namer, Fiammetta and Florence Villoing (2008). “Interpréter les noms déverbaux :
quelle relation avec la structure argumentale du verbe de base ? Le cas des noms
en -oir(e)”. In: Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2008. Ed. by
Jacques Durand, Benoı̂t Habert, and Bernard Laks. Paris: Institut de Linguistique
Française, pp. 1539–1557.
New, Boris, Christophe Pallier, Ludovic Ferrand, and Rafael Matos (2001). “Une base
de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE™//A lexical
database for contemporary french: LEXIQUE™”. In: L’année psychologique 101.3,
pp. 447–462.
Petukhova, Volha and Harry Bunt (May 2008). “LIRICS Semantic Role Annotation:
Design and Evaluation of a Set of Data Categories”. In: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08).
Marrakech, Morocco: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). url:
http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/17_paper.pdf.
Piñón, Christopher (1997). “Achievements in an Event Semantics”. In: Proceedings of
Semantics and Linguistic Theory 7. Ed. by Aaron Lawson and Eun Cho. Ithaca,
NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University, pp. 273–296.
— (1999). “Durative adverbials for result states”. In: Proceedings of the 18th West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Vol. 420433. Casadilla Press Somerville.
Plag, Ingo (1999). Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English
derivation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
41/46References VII
Plag, Ingo, Marios Andreou, and Lea Kawaletz (2018). “A frame-semantic approach
to polysemy in affixation”. In: The Lexeme in Descriptive and Theoretical
Morphology. Ed. by Olivier Bonami, Gilles Boyé, Georgette Dal, Hélène Giraudo,
and Fiammetta Namer. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 467–486. doi:
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1407021.
Pustejovsky, James (1995). The Generative Lexicon. MIT press.
Rothstein, Susan (2004). Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical
Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
— (2008). “Two puzzles for a theory of lexical aspect: semelfactives and degree
achievements”. In: Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation. Ed. by
Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow, and Martin Shäfer. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton, pp. 175–198.
Sagot, Benoı̂t (2010). “The Le↵f, a freely available and large-coverage morphological
and syntactic lexicon for French”. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10). Ed. by
Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk,
Stelios Piperidis, Mike Rosner, and Daniel Tapias. Valletta, Malta: European
Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Salvadori, Justine, Lucie Barque, Pauline Haas, Richard Huyghe, Alizée Lombard,
Sandra Schwab, Delphine Tribout, and Marine Wauquier (2021). “The Semantics
of Deverbal Nouns in French: Annotation Guide”. url:
https://github.com/semantics-deverbal-nouns/annotation-guide.
42/46References VIII
Schäfer, Roland (2015). “Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14
architecture”. In: Proceedings of Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora 3
(CMLC-3). Ed. by Piotr Bański, Hanno Biber, Evelyn Breiteneder, Marc Kupietz,
Harald Lüngen, and Andreas Witt. UCREL. Lancaster: IDS. url:
http://rolandschaefer.net/?p=749.
Schäfer, Roland and Felix Bildhauer (2012). “Building Large Corpora from the Web
Using a New Efficient Tool Chain”. In: Proceedings of the Eight International
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Ed. by
Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Ugur Dogan,
Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis. Istanbul,
Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 486–493. isbn:
978-2-9517408-7-7. url: http://rolandschaefer.net/?p=70.
Siloni, Tal (1997). Noun Phrases and Nominalizations: The Syntax of DPs. Berlin:
Springer.
Tagliamonte, Sali A and R Harald Baayen (2012). “Models, forests, and trees of York
English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice”. In: Language
Variation and Change 24.2, pp. 135–78.
Uth, Melanie (2010). “The Rivalry of French -Ment and -Age from a Diachronic
Perspective”. In: The Semantics of Nominalizations across Languages and
Frameworks. Ed. by Monika Rathert and Artemis Alexiadou. Berlin, New York: De
Gruyter Mouton, pp. 215–44.
43/46References IX
Varvara, Rossella, Gabriella Lapesa, and Sebastian Padó (2021). “Grounding semantic
transparency in context”. In: Morphology. doi: 10.1007/s11525-021-09382-w.
Vendler, Zeno (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wauquier, Marine (Dec. 2020). “Confrontation des procédés dérivationnels et des
catégories sémantiques dans les modèles distributionnels”. PhD thesis. CLLE (UMR
5263), Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, and CNRS.
Wauquier, Marine, Cécile Fabre, and Nabil Hathout (2018). “Di↵érenciation
sémantique de dérivés morphologiques à l’aide de critères distributionnels”. In:
Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF). Vol. 46. EDP Sciences.
44/46You can also read
