Curslexicalsemantics4f

The Development of Componential Analysis in the Generative Tradition: Lexical Decomposition

1. Preliminaries The contribution of GG to lexical semantics has been manifold: (1) a) proposing the concept of mental lexicon and thus laying stress on the manner in which lexical knowledge is stored and ac uired! the generati"e tradition is an intrinsic part of the cogniti"ist paradigm# b) elaborating and refining a notion of lexical entry! c) describing the manner in which the lexicon stores syntactic features as well as the manner in which syntactic information is used in syntax (the pro$ection of lexical items) d) "ery generally an important component of "arious formal approaches to grammar is negotiating the boundary between syntax and the lexicon# 2. Kat and !odor "1#$%&: 'To(ards a )emantic Description of *n+lish, This is the first attempt of explicitly coupling grammatical and semantic description# %ecall that the Grammar had three components in the following organi&ation' whereby the (emantic Component operated on the )eep (tructure produced by phrase structure rules: (emantic Component )eep (tructure (*) (yntactic Component (urface (tructure +honologic Component The semantic component consists of two elements: a# a lexicon that pro"ides a ,meaning- for each lexical item b# a finite set of pro$ection rules' which assign readings to syntactic phrases by combining the readings assigned to their constituents# .t is the form of lexical entries that we are concerned with in a discussion of C/' since it directly embodies a form of componential analysis# 0here 123 inno"ate is in that they propose a classification of semantic markers' which is of interest in the articulation of grammar and semantics# 4ach lexical entry contains the following types of markers: (5) a# grammatical markers' specifically the categorial and sub6categorial features (the c6 selection feature)!e#g# 78' 79' 7 66 8+' etc# b# semantic markers are the features which characteri&e more than one item! these features express similarities between items and therefore they show those aspects of the meaning which are in fact systematic and unco"er the structure of content! e#g#' :7 /nimate;' :7 Colour;' :7(tate;' :7Gradable;!

c# distinguishers a marker which reflects the idiosyncratic element in each lexical element! the presence of a distinguisher shows the irreducible nature of words# <exical items are not e ui"alent with componential definition d# selectional features' the fourth type of information pro"ided by the dictionary refer tot the combinatorial abilities of lexical items: arguments are s6selected! modifiers s6select the modifee! e#g#' drink 7 66 = <.>?.)@8+# 8otational con"entions: semantic markers A (B) distinguishers A :B; selectional restrictions A =B@ On semantic markers and distinguishers a# .n principle the distinction is hard to maintain in particular cases' because it would presuppose' in principle' an exhausti"e analysis of the language to establish the non6systematic features' which characteri&e only one item# b# The distinction is not without theoretical interest: (emantic distinctions expressible in terms of markers or classemes' such as' person' become' human' animal' furniture' etc# ha"e certain characteristic properties: (i) they are readily identifiable across languages' being less language6dependent than contrasts which re uire distinguishers to be described! the meanings of bachelor abo"e corroborate that point# (ii) such contrasts may be rele"ant for the lexical and grammatical system of the language' often being lexicali&ed or grammaticali&ed: 3or instance' 4nglish embodies the : person ; distinction in its pronominal system through contrasts like: someoneC something' nobodyC nothing' etc# The feature : cause; is lexicali&ed in pairs like killC die! bring/ come (They brought him here/ He came here )' take to/ go to' (They took me there. I went there )' : become; is embodied in pairs like: redCredden! blackC blacken' etc#
(4) -achelor D 78oun :)et 666; (human) (male) (adult) (young) (young) (ne"er married) (knigh)t B## :ser"ing under the banner of another; :ha"ing the first or lowest academic degree; (seal) :when without a mate during the breeding season distinguishers selectional restrictions (animal) (male) semantic markers

grammatical markers

(iii) .t has also been proposed that semantic markers' therefore those features which are repeatable in a language and translatable cross6linguistically are taken from a set of semantic universals#

<eibni&' the first philosopher who proposed a form of Universal Grammar' put forth the construction of a uni"ersal symbolic language# The symbols in this uni"ersal language should express simple ,atomic- ideas# The pro$ect was re"i"ed in a different by Carnap: Logische ufbau der !elt (The <ogical (tructure of the 0orld)# 0e ha"e already re$ected the pro$ect of atomic concepts# There is a clear connection between C/ and the pro$ect of semantic universals# Ene might propose a "ery strong thesis of universalism claiming that: (i) there is a fixed set of semantic components' which are uni"ersal in that they are lexicali&ed in all languages! (ii) the formal principles by means of which these combine when they lexicali&e are the same (Auni"ersal)# The distinction between (i) and (ii) is a distinction between substantive uni"ersals (uni"ersal concepts) and formal uni"ersals (uni"ersal principles of combination# (iii) Feanings are decomposable without residue# 2.1.A few remarks are in order here (optional): a# 8one of the 4uropean structuralists) was a uni"ersalist# G$elmsle" maintained a relati"ely weak thesis of formal uni"ersalism' but explicitly re$ected the thesis of substanti"e uni"ersality# .ndeed the problem for structuralist semantics it that it has no place for semantic uni"ersals' since concepts' in principle e"en those employed in a meta6language are language de"endent# Fore recent writers in the same tradition (notably Coseriu' Greimas' +ottier) also re$ect the thesis of uni"ersalists# They apparently do not adhere to the ,di"ision without residue thesis-# Their adherence to this principle is weakened by the methodological decision that meanings should not be split without limit' but only to the point of any two lexemes are different from each other in terms of at least one seme# (econdly' those analysts who recogni&e a difference between systematic (classemes) and idiosyncratic semantic markers (A semes) implicitly re$ect the thesis of di"ision without residue# b# /s already acknowledged classical structuralism cannot in principle guarantee the existence of any substanti"e uni"ersals' and hence there is no theoretical foundation for mutual translatability and mutual comprehension# c# The s"ects Grammar also insisted on the existence of formal uni"ersals ( the types and the format of the rules) /ccording to 123' the pro$ection rules of the semantic component' the structure of the lexical items are all found in all languages# .t is one the merits of GH to insist on the existence of substanti"e uni"ersals: all items which are :79; in any language denote e"entualities and ha"e a6structure' %. Lexical decomposition and the analysis of ver-s Generally the type of lexical entry proposed by 123 is still "alid' especially for the class of nouns# This model of analysis has been enriched and partly supplanted' due to a result more recently obtained in semantic analysis' namely that the internal semantic structure of words depends on the part of speech they belong to# 3.1. / first notable result in the analysis of "erbs into "erbs is the analysis of aspectual classes: (I) (i) (ii) (iii) states achie"ements accomplishments ((x) H4CEF4 (( (x)) (redden' soften' etc#) C/?(4(H4CEF4 (( (x)))

3.2 The analysis of "erbs into simpler "erbs is also confirmed by 0ordnet## Fore on 0ordnet (1JKI' +rinceton)' JL#MMM word6forms a# Enly four categories ha"e been considered: nouns' "erbs' ad$ecti"es and ad"erbs

b# 3unction words are omitted on the assumption' supported by obser"ations of the aphasic patients' in Garett' 1JK*' that they are probably stored se"arately# c# (tudies in word associations led to the reali&ation that syntactic categories differ in sub$ecti"e organi&ation: (3illenbaum 2Nones 1JLI)# The tendedency is that the goal of certain probe will match it in syntactic category: a 8 probe obtained a 8 (KMO)' an / probe obtained an / to a percentage of LIO' while for 9 probes' 9 goals represented 45O# 8ouns are organi&ed as to"ical hierarchies' as suggested by the hierarchical paradigms and taxonomies discussed so far# 9erbs are organi&ed by a "ariety of entailement relations' such that 9erbs denoting complex e"ents entail "erbs or predications denoting sub6e"ents: /d$ecti"es and ad"erbs are organi&ed as 86dimensional hyperspaces# 4ach of these lexical structures reflects a different way of categori&ing experience# <anguages ha"e far fewer "erbs than nouns# ( Collins: 45ooo nouns' 14'MMM "erbs# "erbs are more polysemous# 8ouns ha"e' 1#P4 sense on the a"erage' while "erbs ha"e *'11# (ome properties of "erb meanings: a# 9erbs meanings are more flexible' depending on the nouns they combine with# Compare the interpretations of ha"e in the following' showing the high mutability of "erbs (L) . had a headache C a showerC a surprise')# .n any language there are light "erbs#

b# .n anomalous 978 combinations' it is the "erb which is assigned a new reading' rather than the noun# (P) gras" a handC gras" a meaning! drink waterC drink knowledge

c# These properties are apparent in the existence of light "erbs which are highly "olysemantic: be# have# run# make# do# set# go# come# take# 3or these' polysemy basically arises by combinations with nouns# (K) Result: Generally the meaning of the "erb is sharpened' therefore ,dependent- on the 97 8+ combination# 9erb meaning depends on the "erb6argument configuration# Gere is a the wordnet analysis of H4/T# 0e ha"e added sentence examples# (J) H4/T (all imply' contact' impact) Qbeat' strke' hitR contact "erb Qbeat' flattenR change of state# Qbeat' throb' pulseR "erb of motion Qbeat defeatR competition "erb Qbeat' flog' punishR social interaction Qbeat' stir' whiskR cooking "erb Qbeat' markR count rhythm in music

0ordnet contains pointers to the associated nouns in each meaning (selectional restrictions) Result: (1M)

1# 9erbs are relational and are basically defined by the number and configuration of their arguments# *# The meaning of a "erb is best represented by the syntactic configuration of its arguments' i#e#' by the 9+ it pro$ects# The lexical representation of any "erb in"ol"es a system of relations (called <exical %elational (tructure) ha"ing an essentially syntactic form of the type in (i)# (i) 8+ 9 8+ T 9+ 9S T+ TS 8+

5# Complex 9+s are lexically decomposed into simpler predications# <exical relational structures represent a syntax and they are sub$ect to general principle of syntax# They in"ol"es the same categories defined in syntax: head' complement' specifier# .. The -asic /er-0Phrase confi+1rations (2ale and Keyser& %ecall the classification of "erbs into ergati"eCunergati"e: (1M) 8+ Fary (11) 9 melt 9+ 8+ the ice 9+ 9S 9 sleeps

0ithout the con"ention of bar notation' these configurations would be indistinguishable# %emember howe"er that the Hare +hrase (tructure syntax of the F+ no longer contains bar notations: *mpirical facts: a) unergati"es assign /ccusati"e case: cognate ob$ects: to laugh a cra&y laugh b) the &ero6deri"ed nature of unergati"es in 4nglish: (1*) c) (15) to laughC a laugh' to walk' a walk' to run' a run' to swimC a swim' to danceC a dance' to whistleC a whistle! to snee&eC a snee&e! to scream C a scream! to shi"erC a shi"er' et# many ergati"e "erbs ha"e transiti"e light "erb counterparts: a# b# The child laughed# The child had a laugh# (he sang# (he did a song#

4.1 Hypothesis: Uner ati!es as "#$e%t in%orporatin transiti!es Gi"en the empirical facts noted' suppose that in the lexicon' unergati"e "erbs are transiti"e with incorporated bare 86ob$ects# The 4nglish 869 correlation in unergati"es would be explained' and there is now a clear distinction between ergati"esC unergati"es: (1I) a# 8+ 9 Fary unergatives 9+ 9S 8 melt run ice 9 b# unaccusative 9+ 8+

The same incorporation structure occurs for "erbs of birthing: cal"e' pup' whelp' foal' spawn Ene may say that these "erbs are pro$ected from the category 8' through a process of incorporation (basically' head6to6head mo"ement)# Fore examples: (1L) a# b# c# d# a# b# c# d# The child laughed# The colt snee&ed# +etronella sang# The ewes lambed# The child had a laughC (he did her new song# The ewe had twins# This mare does a nice trot# 9+ 8+ 9 9S 8

(1P)

(1K)

?nergati"es cannot be embedded under causati"es: suggestion they do not ha"e a sub$ect in l6 syntax' but $ust a cognate ob$ect! they get their sub$ect in syntax# This accounts for the following data: (1J) a# b# UThe clown laughed the child#(got the child to laugh) UThe alfalfa snee&ed the colt# (got the colt to snee&e)

4#*# (ome incorporating un6ergati"e types: 1# (imple "erbs There is a "ery producti"e class of "erbs which incorporate their internal argument# Gere are some "erb6classes of ob$ect6incorporating "erb: $.%.& 'erbs of animal birth(giving) (*M) foal# fawn# whel" *dog# wolf+# calve# "u"# lamb# wether *ram+

They are pro$ections of a single lexical head and ha"e one constant (nominal)' which is incorporated by head6to6head mo"ement# (*1) (c) (8+) 9 a# b# 3licka foaled# The cow cal"ed# 9+ 9S 8 foal

The parallel structure with a "ariable (rather than a constant) in the position of the )E is below' and corresponds to simple transiti"e sentences# (**) a# b# c# 3licka had a calf# The cow had a calf# The doe had a fawn# 9+ 8+ 9 ha"e 9S 8

(*5)

The 4nglish have corresponds to the most abstract construal of such "erbs as ,produce-' ,do-' ,make-' ,effect-' ,bring forth-' ,issue- and in general (b) corresponds to this meaning# 0e assume that ob$ect incorporating "erbs are unergati"e' illustrating the same class of "erbs as typical unergati"es: laugh# slee"# snore, chir"# twitter# roar# etc# which also in"ol"e conflation of an internal ob$ect# Fost of these "erbs may appear with cognate ob$ects and ha"e light "erb paraphrases# They may assign /ccusati"e to the cognate ob$ect (Hur&ioSs Generali&ation) or to the sub$ect of a small clause in a causati"e construction: (*4) (*I) 8+ 9 (*L) a# b# c# laugh' sleep' boo' cough' hiccup' wince' hiss' whistle' snore! chirp' twitter' roar' 9+ 9S 8 laugh

Ge laughedC Ge ga"e a laugh Ge hissed#C Ge ga"e out a hiss# They laughed C booedC hissed : the actor off the stage;C

a# (*P)

"erbs of VdiningS# lunch' dine' breakfast' picnic 0e lunchedChad lunch at the Horder CafW#

b# (*K)

"erbs of har"esting: hay' berry' mushroom' fish' whale! get fish' get mushrooms

c# (*J)

weather "erbs rain' snow' hail' sleet' dri&&le' lighten' thunder .t rainedC snowed C sleeted C dri&&led a lot# .t was raining cats and dogs#

.n this case' analy&ing these "erbs as unergati"e does not come from any common transiti"e paraphrase' but follows from a grammatical principle that pre"ents specifiers to incorporate! conflation cannot proceed from upwards' as a result' rain' thunder' are unaccusati"e and select an expleti"e sub$ect to satisfy the 4++ property of Tense# 8otice also occasional cognate ob$ect constructions: .tSs raining cates and dogs# 4.2 Another similar %orrelation: ad$e%ti!es and in%hoati!e !er#s: .n more languages than not' many inchoati"e "erbs meaning something like Vbecome /)NS are related or deri"ed from an ad$ecti"e# (ome familiar 4nglish examples are gi"en below# 4nglish may use a suffix or a &ero morpheme: (5M) /erto redden to fatten to soften to sharpen to solidify to thicken Ad3ective red fat soft sharp solid thick /erto cool Ad3ectives cool to thin thin

Hy"othesis: .nchoati"es are ad$ecti"e incorporating "erbs! .nchoati"e "erbs based on ad$ecti"es are deri"ed by incoroporating the underlying ad$ecti"e into a "erbali&ing head! this explains their morphological relatedness' as well as the additional morphology that shows up on the "erbal form# The /+ express the final state of the inner sub$ect# .nchoati"es are change of state "erbs# Gi"en the structures in (5M)' one may conclude that the abstract H4CEF4 "erb in the structure is morphologically reali&ed as X48 (The metal flattens) or as (The gra"y thinned)# (5*) 9 en 8+ 9+ /+ / red / / 7 red(d) 9 en 4P 9+ /+ t

Consider also: (55) (54) 9 The gra"y thinned 9+ /+

8+ gra"y

/ thin

The lexical category /+ is associated with the notion VstateS' the configuration in (15) expresses a change of state' as defined abo"e# The sub$ect is an affected patient or theme# 4mbedding this under a "erb yields the parallel causati"e construction# Fiddle formation is again possible: (5I) The metal flattened# The days lengthened# The sky darkened# The noose tightened# Change of state "erbs are thus pro$ected from /s' since the latter denote states: 4.3 &er#s that %ontain prepositional small %lause: lo%ation and lo%atum !er#s $.-.& (5L) Location verbs

ground the planes' $ail the prisoner' shel"e the book' porch the newspaper shel"e' pen' corral' box' crate' coop' etc

These are modeled on the "erb VputS ' i#e#' Vcause to be in a particular locationS# He shelved the book is analy&ed as He "ut the book on the shelf# or VGe caused the book to getCbe on the shelfS# Thus' the lexical decomposition of "erbs amounts to decomposing them in smaller "erbs which the complex "erb entailed# .f VGe shel"ed the bookS is true' then it is also true that VThe book Cis on the shelfS' VThe book got to be on the shelfS' VGe caused the book to be on the shelf#S (5P) VGe shel"ed the bookS VThe book Cis on the shelfS VThe book got to be on the shelfS VGe caused the book to be on the shelf#

0ith these "erbs' the head6complement relation in"ol"es the categories 9 and +' with the latter subordinate to the former# These basic semantic notions combine to assign an elementary semantic "alue to this syntactic structure: a dynamic e"ents implicates an interrelation ' as expressed in (5K)# The most salient meaning attached is change of location( achie"ements)# / + expresses the inter6relation between a tra$ectory and a landmark : get mud on the wall# get a fly into the sou";# (5K) 9 8+ + (5J) Ge $ailed the prisoners 9S 9 8+ + ++ +S 8 9S ++ +S 8+

(prisoners)

3ail

4"idence for the complex structure is also pro"ided by ad"erbial modifiers and negation' which may modify any one of the predicates in this lexical structure# The position of the for6 phrase is associated with a specific scopal interpretation# (4M) (41) ++ for three years a# b# .or three years' the (heriff of 8ottingham $ailed %obin Good# The (heriff of 8ottingham $ailed %obin Good for three years# 9+ 9+ 8+ 9 (4*) 9+ 8+ 9 ++ 8+ %obin + Good 9S ++ +S 8 3ail ++ for three years# 9S ++ 8+ %obin + Good +S 8 3ail

$.-.% Locatum verbs are illustrated in (45) below: They are so called because reference is made to an ob$ect located in a place (45) a) carpet the floor' put the carpet on the floor' salt the food' sugar the cake' paint the wall' paper the wall' etc# b) bandage' bar' bell' blindfold' bread' butter' clothe' curtain' dress' fund' gas' grease' harness' hook' house' ink' oil' pepper' powder' saddle' salt' shoe' spice' water' word 8otice that these "erbs may allow more than one paraphrase' and it is not immediately clear how the incorporation process takes place# .t is at this point that syntactic principles inter"ene# .ncoporation affects complements' not the sub$ects' moreo"er it affects the lowest complement in the structure# Conse uently' the correct paraphrase will be (44)' not (4I)# (44) The cowboy saddled the horse The cowboy buttered the bread# They curtained the room# The cowboy fitted the horse with a saddle# The cowboy spread the bread with butter They pro"ided the room with curtains

(4I)

The cowboy saddled the horse# The cowboy buttered the bread# They curtained the room#

The cowboy put the saddle on the horse# The cowboy spread the butter on the bread# They put curtains in the room#

1M

(4L)

<ocatum "erbs 9+ 8+ / 4P The cowboy the horse + 9S ++ +S 8 saddle

(4P) 9+ 8+ 9 8+ The cowboy put (4K) 9+ 8+ 9 8+ The cowboy fit the horse + with 9S ++ +S 8+ a saddle the + saddle on 9S ++ +S 8+ the horse

An important +enerali ation# 9erbal configurations which ha"e ,inner sub$ects- yield middles# n affected "atient is the only role that undergoes middle formation (4J) (IM) a# b# a# b# c# d# a# b# .n this region' the sky darkens easily# Fetals flatten easily These books shel"e easily# Crabapples can easily# Hrahman cal"es donSt pen easily# >uarter horses corral easily# Gorses saddle easily# (uch floors carpet easily#

(I1)

5. Confi+1rational definitions of 0roles instead

11

'.1 A synta%ti% notion of theta role: A ents /t this point' we can see the beginning of a way to get rid of theta6roles' replacing them with interpretations of 8+s in particular syntactic configurations# .n the ergati"e and inchoati"e configurations abo"e' there is no /gent' and configurationally no 9+ specifier# .n both cases an agent can easily be added (I*) 0e flattened the metal# 0e darkened the room 0e tightened the knot# 0e lengthened the word# The sun melted the ice# The boy broke the window#

(I5) (I5S)

9+ )+ Ge 9 laugh 9S 8 tlaugh

The unergati"e configuration is /genti"e and syntactically the specifier 9+ is filled' recei"ing an /genti"e interpretation: Hy"othesis: being an /gent simply means being the specifier of 9+# '.2 (hemes as inner su#$e%ts) *oals as +,nner "#$e%ts/ .f /gents are spec69+s' what are Themes# .n all the cases with o"ert direct ob$ects abo"e' the direct ob$ect undergoes a change of state (the inchoati"e' H4CEF4 /)N "erbs) or a change of location! these are canonical Theme properties# (I4) Configurationally' the Theme is an inner sub$ect: Goals C<ocationsC <ocatums ualify as inner ob$ects:

'.3 A %on%eptually ne%essary alteration .n order to ha"e a consistently pure structural definition of theme' underi"ed ergati"es should be represented as including small clauses: (II) 9 melt (IL) 9 8+ the ice 9+ /+ / melt 9+ 8+ the ice

1*

'.4 &-s with the same stru%ture as the a#o!e) #ut without %onflation of an ar ument: a# (IP) 9S 9 draw eat write do make )+ a circle an apple a poem a dance a handout 'erbs of creation/consum"tion A transiti"e (unergati"e) "erbs

The unincorporated unergati"e structures abo"e contain the only direct ob$ects that are not inner sub$ects# These are true .ncremental ThemesC b# (IK) 9SC9+ 9 )+ turn paint c# (IJ) 9+ 9S / )+ + gi"e send teach a book a letter 3rench to to to ++ +S )+ (ue 3rance the children the lea"es the town /d$+ / red red 'erbs of change of state *unaccusative+

'erbs of transfer *Locatum / Location verbs+

5. Concl1sions (ome configuration e ui"alents of 6roles (more or less) (LM) 0roles /gent Theme Goal (pec6v+ (pec6(C (.nner sub$ect) Comp6(C

15

.ncremental Theme

Comp6v+

<6syntax must be syntactic if the explanation of the properties of unergati"es "erbs abo"e is correct: the co"ertly transiti"e nature of unergati"e "erbs is precisely what ensures that their sub$ect is an /gent# $. Conflation Generali&ation: only complements conflate' inner sub$ects usually do not# ..1 Hale and /eyser (2000)) Harley (2002): (L1) a# Conflation should be associated with Ferge:

b# Conflation occurs when a constituent is merged with whose p6signature is defecti"e# The p6sig of is copied into the defecti"e p6sig of # c# 3or economy reasons' the copied p6sig is pronounced only once in its upper position#

d# /ssume that heads whose p6sig is defecti"e bear an :7affix; features# / :7affix; feature triggers copying the p6feature of the sister category at Ferge# e# Conflation applies as early as possible ..2. 1n lish in%orporation in 2er nominali3ations and 2in nominali3ations (L*) a# (er nominal&ations paper cutter' can opener' ' house6keeper' door6stopper' page6truner' truck dri"er' script writer' tiebreaker' homemaker' name6caller' noise6maker' blood donnor b# (ing compounds paper cutting' can6opening' ' house6keeping' page6turning' truck dri"ing' script writing' tiebreaking' homemaking' name6calling' noise6making' fact6checking' fact6finding' etc# 4xamples of conflation: scri"twriter (L5) nscriptwrite n er 9 write6 9scriptwrite 8 script

0eriving the incro"orations through conflation: a# b# c# (elect write with :7affix; feature# Ferge write and script# Copy the p6sig of script into write during Ferge# +ro$ect the head (9A label the whole thing with the headSs feature)

14

d# Ferge scriptwriter with Xer' with Xer ha"ing an affix feature# Copy the p6sig of scrptwrite into that of Xer again at Ferge (Conflation 4conomy) e# +ro$ect the head n# f# +ronounce the entire structure as script writer# This will work the same with ad$ecti"al roots: (L4) can6opener ncan6opener n er / open6 /can6open 8 can

1# *#

6es1lts: The conflation mechanism deri"es the 3irst (ister +rinciple .f you want to incorporate an inner sub$ect' the whole ++C/+ should be incorporated

1I