verb classes - properties, lexical decomposition, nat semantic metalanguage

Question 1

Lexical meaning of verbs:

Inchoative + Causative verbs

Answer 1

Relationship between adjective describing a state and verb describing
beginning or change of state, e.g.:
1. Wide (Adj.)
2. The road widened.
3. The council widened the road.
4. Open (Adj)
5. The gates opened.
6. The porters opened the gates. (Saeed, 1997:71-72)

• (1) & (4) describe a state (doesn’t involve change)
• (2) & (5) describe a change of state; they are INCHOATIVE
• (3) & (6) are transitive and their meaning CAUSATIVE

CAUSATIVE-INCHOATIVE ALTERNATION:
Some verbs polysemous between a transitive & intransitive sense
> Timmy broke your favourite cup
> Your favourite cup broke.

Transitive Vs are causative, intransitive Vs are inchoative
» Alternation applies to a number of change of state verbs but not to all of
them
EG DISAPPEAR
>The rabbit disappeared.
>*The magician disappeared the rabbit.

EG ‘cut’ only transitive/causative
> *The snake cut in half
> Common FLA error in children

Question 2

A number of distinct classes identified in Levin’s (1993) and Rappaport
Hovav & Levin (1998) work, following Fillmore’s (1970) seminal paper

Conative alteration?

Answer 2

• Shared meaning components define class membership
• Class defining components are also grammatically relevant

• Tests show different behaviour of e.g. ‘break’ type Vs and ‘hit’ type Vs
CONATIVE ALTERNATION: (from Latin conor/conari, “to try or attempt”)
> Modifies the interpretation of the V and nature of arguments
»Max kicked the ball/at the ball.
»Max broke the window/*at the window

Question 3

Verbs: lexical decomposition

Answer 3

Most interesting semantic properties of Verbs are those that define class
membership (not idiosyncratic punch vs slap)

LEAD TO: LEXICAL DECOMPOSITION
Use of primitive predicates (Dowty, 1979, Jackendoff 1983, 1991, Rappaport
Hovav & Levin, 1998)

Question 4

Primitives or primitive terms

Answer 4

theoretical terms that cannot be further
analysed in terms of simpler notions
• Thematic roles are not primitives
• Can be shown by breaking down meaning of verb further

Question 5

Lexical decomposition example

Answer 5

• Brutus killed Caesar.
Brutus = AGENT & Caesar = THEME

Alternative = break down KILL into “subevents” showing relations between arguments in more detail

[DO*(b)] CAUSE[BECOME[NOT ALIVE)(c]]]
A Doing by Brutus CAUSES it to BECOME the case that Caesar
is NOT ALIVE.
(where ‘not alive’ is a state)

Predicates In CAPS - not same as english words - CAUSE only expresses Direct Causation

ARGUMENTS represented by parts of formula (SCHEMATA)

eg. DO/ACT(b) represents the fact that Brutus is the agent (doer)
• BECOME[STATE(c)] shows that Caesar is the theme of a changeof-state
verb

Question 6

GENERALISED SCHEMATA in lexical decomposition

Answer 6

More generally, classes defined in terms of generalized schemata
EG:
• Inchoatives: BECOME[STATE(y)] (change-of-state theme)
> The ice melted.
BECOME[MELTED(the ice)]

• Agentives:
DO(x)
> Jane patted Fido.
DO PAT(j, f)

 Agentive causatives:
 [DO(x)] CAUSE[BECOME [STATE(y)]
>The hairdresser straightened my hair.
[DO (the hairdresser, my hair)] CAUSE [BECOME
[STRAIGHT(my hair)]]

Non-agentive causatives: CAUSE(x,[BECOME[STATE(y)]]
> The frost hardened the washing on the line.
CAUSE(the frost,[BECOME[HARD(the washing…)]]

Statives: STATE(x)
> This dish is hot.
HOT(this dish)

Question 7

ANOTHER APPROACH TO LEXICAL DECOMPOSITION: Wierzbicka’s semantic
primitives

Answer 7

Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) aims to describe all meanings in all
languages; see also work of Cliff Goddard
• Strictly limited set of SEMANTIC PRIMES
• Primes are UNDEFINABLE
• They are UNIVERSAL, i.e. lexicalised in all natural languages
• A number of different languages from different families examined so far

Question 8

Semantic Primes

Answer 8

I, YOU, SOMEONE (PERSON), SOMETHING (THING), PEOPLE; WORLD
THIS, THE SAME, OTHER, PART (OF), KIND (OF)
ONE, TWO, MANY (MUCH), MORE, VERY, ALL, SOME (OF)
THINK, KNOW, WANT, FEEL, HEAR, SAY
GOOD, BAD; BIG, SMALL
DO, HAPPEN; MOVE, THERE IS, (BE) ALIVE
WHEN, BEFORE, AFTER; A LONG TIME, A SHORT TIME, NOW
WHERE, UNDER, ABOVE; FAR, NEAR; SIDE; INSIDE; HERE
NOT, CAN; IF, BECAUSE, LIKE, IF…WOULD, MAYBE

Question 9

NSM examples

Answer 9

X feels envy: =
Sometimes a person thinks something like this:
Something good happened to this other person
It did not happen to me
I want things like this to happen to me
Because of this, this person feels something bad
X feels something like this

Sky
something very big
people can see it
people can think like this about this something
it is a place
It is above all other places
It is far from people

Question 10

NSM positives and negatives

Answer 10

POSITIVES:
• Unlike other approaches to decomposition, not restricted to certain word classes
• Can capture hyponymy (KIND OF) meronymy (PART OF)
• Allows description of meaning in other languages

PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS:
• Primitives very general, and explications are typically imprecise/vague
• Definition of envy would also apply to e.g. self-pity/feeling neglected
• Does not explain meaning relations between primitives (e.g. antonymy with BIG
and SMALL)