Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
1 INTRODUCTION
In this paper we offer a semantic study of motion verbs and motion verb complexes determined by motion verbs and spatial prepositional phrase adjuncts.
We propose a classification of motion verbs and of motion verb complexes.
Unlike other semantic or syntactic studies, we build up the spatiotemporal
semantic properties of motion verb complexes compositionally, on the basis of
the semantic properties of the verbs, their arguments and adjuncts.
Motion verbs convey much more information than just a simple and strict
spatiotemporal description of motion activities (as we will see shortly). The
immense richness of motion verbs is probably at the origin of the difficulties
encountered by all those (including us) who have attempted to study them.
The organization of this paper is as follows. First, we set out in Section 2 an
ontology of eventualities and spatiotemporal extensions, which furnishes a
philosophical background against which to analyze motion describing expressions.
Then, in Section 3 we present the typology for motion verbs in French. We
have considered motion verbs without any adjuncts, in their atemporal form
and independently of any context in order to extract their, and only their,
intrinsic semantics. To be sure, even this requires certain ontological
assumptions about processes, objects, boundaries, and the like. We detail these
in Section 2. We have also complemented our purely linguistic justifications for
this typology with some considerations that stem from compositional
In this paper we offer a semantic study of motion verbs and morion verb complexes
determined by motion verbs and spatial prepositional phrase adjuncts. We propose a
classification of morion verbs and of morion verb complexes. Unlike other semantic or syntactic studies, we build up the spatiotemporal semantic properties of motion verb complexes
compositionally, on the basis of the semantic properties of the verbs, their arguments and
adjuncts. We show how to combine this lexical information with discourse information to
determine the spatiotemporal structure of texts and to help with lexical disambiguation.
164 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
The first point is exemplified by comparing verbs like those in (ia) and (ib)
or in (ia) and (ic). Verbs like the one in (ia) require the moving entity to be
outside some location before the process and inside after. In contrast, verbs like
the one in (ib) require the moving entity to be inside some location before the
process begins and outside after the process ends. Verbs like the one in (ic)
require the moving entity to be outside some location both before and after the
process; but they also require that the position after the process has to be closer
to this location than the position before the process.
The second point can be illustrated by contrasting the complexes given in
(2a), (2b), and (2c). In these three examples, the same motion verb sortir and the
same location le jardin are used. These complexes differ only in the preposition
used to link the location in the PP to the motion verb. In (2a), the complex
requires that the moving entity inside the garden before the process and outside
after, in (2b), the complex requires that the moving entity be inside some location before the process, outside it (i.e. inside another location) after the process,
and that it must pass through the garden during its moving process; in (2c), the
complex requires that the moving entity be inside some location, which is not
the garden, before the process and inside the garden after it.
In (2a), (2b), and (2c), we have in fact changed just one component of the
complex and we have seen that the resulting meaning has completely changed.
But all the components can also change. Compare for example (2a) and (2d).
We need to be able to calculate the meanings of such complexes in a rulegoverned way.
Motion verbs and motion verb complexes are two different things (see, for
instance, Sablayrolles 1992b or 1993) that should not be indiscriminately mixed
together in a typology. But if we consider them separately, we of course need
something to connect themif they are obviously related. This is the aim of the
compositional rules which compute of the semantics of a complex form one of
each component. The computation of the spatiotemporal properties of motion
complexes is similar to the calculation of aspect, as studied in Verkuyl (1972),
Smith (1991), and Krifka (1987).
166 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Motion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
1991).
the noun phrase; in other cases they are anaphorically identified, and in the
remaining cases their existence is assumed through the introduction of
discourse referents. As a consequence, we do not have (1) but only (2) and (3)
since we should allow for refinements of the path within Source(e) or Goal(e).
Path(e), x - (Source(e),..., Goal(e))
(1)
(2)
(3)
SIP(e) =
{y:3xePath(e)3ll...lk,3lm,...ln
((x - < / . . / t > u y u </,,...,/
A O (STrej'(/,), STref (Source (e))) A . . . A O(STref(lk), STref (Source (e)))
A O(STref(lm), STref (Goal (e))) A . . . A O(STref(ln), STref (Goal (e)))}
(4)
As we shall see, the notions of Source, Goal and SIP may be focalized by
motion verbs, prepositions and morion complexes in French; they are
important types of entities in natural language metaphysics.
Our study also requires us to make explicit our assumptions concerning the
semantics of morion expressions. We will follow roughly the approach of
Davidson (1967) (an approach which is also used in DRT), on which
eventualities, along with other objects, satisfy predicates derived from natural
language verbs. In DR-theoretic terms eventuality discourse referents will be
arguments of conditions introduced by the verbs, and in fact the eventuality
discourse referents themselves are introduced by the inflection node in the
syntactic tree. Such eventuality discourse referents are also arguments to
various adverbial phrases, and, in particular, spatial prepositional phrases. One
of our tasks in this paper is to classify the various eventuality discourse referents
that might be understood as representing movements and to determine those
inferences that allow us to specify the spariotemporal position of the
eventuality as a whole or of its parts or actors with respect to various reference
locations given in a text (see Borillo & Sablayrolles 1993 for a discussion). In this
paper we will present both a typology and rules for drawing inferences about
locational structure. Our ultimate aim is to use this lexical research to drive
discourse reasoning about spariotemporal structure (see, for instance, Asher et
al. 1993). But our task here is to make clear what inferences are allowed by the
lexical content of the verbal predicate on an eventuality and with the other
168 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
modifiers. We will restrict this study to verb complexes and ignore verbal
nominalization and adjectival phrases, among others. To simplify matters
further, we will consider only transitive motion verbs and verb complexes with
only one PP adjunct, though our theory straightforwardly extends to arbitrary
spatial PP adjuncts as long as these are of different types of the sort that we will
define below (see Sablayrolles 1991b for a discussion on this point). We
postpone the treatment of multiple spatial PPs of the same type in a single
verbal complex for a future occasion.
3 THE TYPOLOGY
One concept that plays a central role in a typology of motion is the concept of
'location'. Despite first impressions, it is not easy to give a definition of location.
Boons (1985) and Laur (1991) use the concept in a rough and ready way,
without any analysis. But this leads to difficulties, especially at the level of
inferences, where we need to specify the spatiotemporal position of one eventuality with respect to some reference location, as shown in Sablayrolles 1992a.
Boons and Laur define their displacement verbs as 'verbs absolutely requiring a
change of location of a body, which suffers no modification of its shape nor of
its substance during the process' (Boons 1985). This definition is imprecise due
to the non-specified nature of their concept of'location', and it leads them to
conflate verbs such as entrer to get in and courir to run, for example. Let us compare (3) and (4).
3. Demainj'entrerai a la cuisine, sous un pretexte quelconque (Martin du Gard)
Tomorrow, I will enter the kitchen under some pretext
4. Les joueurs courent sur le terrain de football
The players run on the soccer field
5. Le gardien de but s'appuie contre le montant de ses buts
The goalkeeper leans against his goalpost
Both entrer in (3) and courir in (4) are displacement verbs (in the terms of
Boons (198 5) and Laur (1991). Both imply a change of'location' in their sense of
the moving enrity(ies). The PPs in (3) and (4) give us a 'location': la cuisine the
kitchen, and le terrain de football the soccerfield, respectively. Knowing that in
both sentences there is a change of'location', they would infer that in (3) there is
a change of location with respect to la cuisine, which is absolutely true, and that
in (4) there is a change of location with respect to le terrain de football, which is
definitely false.
Indeed, in (3), the author is located, before the process, outside the kitchen,
and will be located, after the process, inside the kitchen; there truly is a change
of'location'. We can naturally talk about a change of location here.1
But in (4), the players were located, before the process, on the soccer field, and
will still be located, after the process, on the soccerfield. However, if we are in the
context of a soccer game, they have surely passed several times from one subpart of the soccerfield to another, even if they always stay on the soccerfield. So
there are some changes of spatial properties, but they are not changes of
location. Compare, for example, (5). In the case of (4), we will speak not of
change of location but of change of position2 and consider the soccer field as a
background location. In the case of (5), we will speak of a change of posture}
Although it is probably possible to continue to refine the granularity of analysis
and look at ever finer detailed movements, our study stops with changes of
posture. The study of motion takes place always relative to objects that move,
and for practically all purposes of which we can conceive, change of posture of
an object of the right sort of granularity suffices to capture the nature of
movement as expressed in natural language. Additionally, we suspect that
further refinements of motion will lead to a disintegration of the conceptwe
will end up with a Heraclitean universe in which all things change. In the next
section we analyze the concepts of location, position and posture more fully.
170 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
world knowledge (i.e. directly from the world, or the previous discourse, or from
both).
In the case of a change of posture, what is introduced by the PP is
again a location. In such cases, as the name indicates, there is no change of
location or position (the moving entity stays within this location and at the
same position for the whole process), but rather a change of posture. The
process then consists in realizing a special, physical relation between one or
more parts of the moving entity and the location introduced by the PP. For
example, in (6), it is a matter of realizing a physical contact between the knees4
and the bench; in (7) of passing the head and the shoulders through the window.
In all cases, PPs used in combination with motion verbs always introduce a
location.
We now propose the following analyses for our concepts of location (cf.
Definition 1), position (cf. Definition 2), and posture (cf. Definition 3).
Definition 1 A location 5 is analysed as a portion of space6 which can be 'designated'
in natural language, and with which is associated afunctionality. This location can be
recognized as one in which certain types ofactivity take place? Locations aregenerally
lexicalized by means of a real lexical item (e.g. la cuisine the kitchen in (3)) or a
construction using a preposition and a real lexical item (e.g. derriere la maison
behind the housej. They can also be expressed with deictic constructions like here or
where John was 5 minutes ago.
Definition 2 A position 8 is analyzed as a portion of surface, without any
functionality or real associated lexical item,9 and only geometrically defined by the
pragmatic shape (cf. Definition 4) associated with a given entity. A position thus is
necessarily dependent on the entity usedfor its definition.
Definition 3 A posture 10 is analyzed as a special way to be inside one's pragmatic
shape, with which is associated a certain functionality (cf. Definition 4). Postures are
always postures ofan entity and they are defined by the relations between the parts of
that entity. Postures are lexicalized by participial forms ofverbs ofchanges of posture
e.g. assis sitting down or by adjectives like debout standing up.
Definition 4 By pragmatic shape we mean the 3-D portion of space fully
occupied by the entity, plus that space that would be occupied by the entity x were it to
undergo a change of posture n, where n is constrained such that ifn occursfrom ttot'
and posture(x, t) posture(x, t'), then STref(x, t) is at least roughly the same as
STre(x,f).
We are now able to define precisely the generic concepts of Source, Goal and
Path given in Section 2, with each of our location, position, and posture.
Source(e), Init-position(e) and Init-posture(e) are a location, position, and
posture, respectively, whose spatiotemporal referent contains or is in contact
with STref(e,Init(e)); we define Goal(e), Final-position(e), and Final-posture(e)
analgously. Finally, Path(e) will be a set of sequences of locations and Pathposition^) and Path-posture(e) will be a sequence of positions and postures,
respectively. Similarly for SIP(e), SlP-position(e), SlP-posture(e).
With the definitions of location, position, and posture given in Section 3.2,
we can now talk about class of motion verbs of change of location, change of
position, and change of posture.
Let us have a closer look at the verbs of change of position. Compare, for
example, (4), which we give below again as (8) and (9). Compare also (10) and
(11). Some of these verbs (like courir to run, danser to dance, voler tojly ...) can
be combined with sur place on the spot. Others (like se deplacer to move around,
circuler to circulate, descendre to go down, s'elever to go up ...) cannot.
This shows that the latter always imply a change of position, while the
former only suggest it. The latter class (e.g. se deplacer to move around) will keep
the name of verbs of change of position. We will call verbs like courir to run
verbs of inertial change of position.
We also distinguish verbs of inertial change of position from verbs of
change of posture. Verbs of inertial change of position typically describe
a change of position (8), although this is not a strict entailment (9). Nevertheless,
where it is a strict entailment, the change of location concerns the entity in its
entirety. On the contrary, verbs of change of posture usually, as their name
suggests, describe a change of posture (12). They can also describe some kind of
change of position, but in this case the change always concerns only parts of the
entity (13). It never concerns the whole entity. Otherwise this would imply that
(13) should have a meaning like that of (14)!
172 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
We thus arrive at four classes of motion verbs. We give both a discursive and
a logical definition below (Definitions 5.1-8.1 and 5.2-8.2) for each of these
classes.
To present our axioms, we need a formal language. We have already made
use of a predicate calculus language for describing our spatiotemporal relations.
First we extend this language with a conditional operator >, where A > B
means 'if A then normally B' and represents a defeasible or generic rule. The
semantics of this language is given in Asher & Morreau (1991) and allows us to
encode defaults about lexical entries. We will shortly be reasoning about the
types and properties of eventualities that verbs and verb complexes introduce
within our semantic representations. As we intend ultimately to talk of
discourse structure using the framework of Asher et al. (1993), our semantic
representations for clauses will be DRSs and hence the representational
elements that verbs will introduce will be predicative DRSs that abstract over
discourse referents. The types of eventualities that we shall discuss are in fact
types of discourse referents. Predicative DRSs are functions from tuples of
discourse referents of the appropriate type to conditions in a DRS. Our axioms
will then apply these predicative DRSs to a sequence of discourse referents of
particular types that occur as arguments and spell out the consequences in
terms of spatiotemporal conditions on those discourse referents. We will also
generalize on the types of conditions; thus, we will have axioms that apply
conditions of a certain type derived from those verbs and prepositions. These
axioms should be understood as rules for expanding a representational
structureeither a DRS or a structure that in the DRS construction procedure
we favor will eventually yield a DRS when combined with other elements. This
is similar to the approach taken by Kamp & Rofideutscher in a number of
papers (see e.g. Kamp & Rofideutscher 1992). We will assume the existence of
certain functional dependencies between eventualities and other discourse
entities, e.g. Source(e), SIP(e), Goal(e), Mobile(e)the moving entityand
Lref(e)the location of reference.11 We will forgo the box notation of DRT,
since for us nothing hangs on it at the level of the spatiotemporal information
we address here, though we shall construct DRSs when we apply our theory.12
We give below the properties for each group of verb.
One may also wish to require that for changes of position, the moving entity
at least by default stays in the same location during the whole process, but we
will not do this here. So it is possible that a change of position is also a change of
location.
Definition 7 Verbs of inertial change of position
1. By default a verb of inertial change of position implies a change opposition
for the moving entity
ex: courir to run, danser to dance, voler to fly...
2. inertial-change-of-position{e) > Path-position(e) [(Init-position (e))}
Definition 8 Verbs of change of posture
1. Verbs of change o f posture entails that the moving entity stays inside the same
location and at the same position during the whole process, but also changes of
posture during the process
ex: se pencher to lean over/towards/forward/back, s'asseoir to sit down, se
baisser to bend down.,.
2. change-of-posture(e) -* Path-posture(e) = {(Init-posture(e))}
change-of-posture(e) Path-position (e) = {(Init-position (e))}
Note that a change of posture is not any change of posture, but just one that
is expressed by a certain verb. Changes of posture in our sense, those that are
expressed by verbs in French (and we suppose for other languages too), do not
entail changes of positionand, hence, changes of location.
174 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
reflect the minimal intrinsic core meaning common to all the verbs belonging
to the class. The three first subclasses are not exclusive; when we take each class
to be defined by the eventualities they describe, they are in fact strictly ordered
by the subset relation. That is, the spatial properties of the minimal core
meaning of verbs of change of location are more constrained than those of
verbs of change of position, which, in their turn, are more constrained than
those of verbs of inertial change of position. Our typology is based on intuition
and our definitions of location and position: one cannot change location if one
does not change position during the process of changing of location; and one
cannot change position if one does not inertially change position during the
process.
Our taxonomy allows for a monotonic calculation of constraints for a verb
complex. The combination of a verb and its PP or other arguments (direct
object, for example) can only add to the spatiotemporal properties that affect
the Source, Goal and Path of the targets' posture, position, or location. There is
an evident advantage in doing this. Non-monotonic constraint propagation
would require us to assume the existence of something like an intensional
operator that might block the truth conditional content of the verb itselfin
the sense that Believe (ft) fails to entail (j> or to rephrase all our constraints at the
default level. The latter makes lexical semantics very complex (for a discussion
see Lascarides & Asher 1993), and we do not see our way through. The former
seems semantically unmotivated. With monotonic constraint propagation, we
need resort to neither alternative.13
Take, as an illustration, the following verbs: courir to run, voyager to travel, and
entrer to enter, which are verbs of inertial change of position, of change of position, and ofchange oflocation, respectively. The composition oftorun with some
other elements can either result in a complex having the same constraints (such as
in (15)), or more constraints (such as in (16)), or even more constraints (such as in
(17)). In the case of the verb to travel, the compositionality can either result in a
complex having the same constraints on the movements of the moving entity
(such as in (18)), or more constraints (such as in (19)), but never fewer constraints
(as (20) shows). In the case of the verb to enter, which already belongs to the class
placing the most constraints on the movement of the moving entity (of the three
classes considered here), only a complex having the same constraints can result
from compositional calculation (cf. for example (21)).
4 F R O M LEXICAL S E M A N T I C S T O D I S C O U R S E
UNDERSTANDING
The composition of verbs of change of posture with any PP (cf. (22) and (23))
will always result in a complex having the same constraints as those the verb
introduces. If one does not change position or posture during the process
described by a verb or verbal complex, then this 'process' can only be a static
one.
176 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
In both (24) and (25), Abby has gone from the inside of the house to the
outside of it But if sortir in (24) only describes this sort of displacement, partir in
(2$) forces Abby to continue her displacement till she is away from the house, at
a sufficient distance. Under a certain critical distance, the verb partir could not
be used. For example, if Abby took two minutes to talk in the garden with her
neighbour Peggy, and if someone asked Al, who is inside the house 'Abby estelle partie?' 'Has Abby gone away?', Al will surely answer no, if he can hear her
talking or see her through a window. This critical distance is a function of many
parametersnot only the size of the moving entity and of the location, but also
the presence and the size of the other referents (locations and/or objects) in the
scene, the perceptual (visual, auditory ...) capabilities in the case of human
beings, and other elements of the context. The critical distance will be different
if we know that Abby intends to go away by foot or by car, for example. It is very
difficult to circumscribe precisely this critical distance. But we do believe it is
part and parcel of our natural language metaphysics and classification of
movements. We believe that the contextual factors relevant to describing this
critical distance must be handled non-monotonically. But we shall do no more
here than assume that there is some contexrually given and pragmatically
constrained minimal distance.
With (26) and (27), the plane stays during its whole motion outside the
location which here is runway 4. Nevertheless, the displacement is not the same
in the two sentences. In (26), the plane touches down and thus finally comes in
contact with the runway, whereas in (27) it comes near the runway without
touching it.
In order to be able to take into account and to represent formally these
differences, we propose seven relations (cf. Section 4.2). Four of these relations
encoding how the space is structured by verbs of change of location are similar
to the ones presented byjackendoff & Landau (1992) which encode the space as
it is structured by spatial prepositions. For example, the preposition inside
describes the interior of the reference object; against describes an external
contact with the reference objecq near describes an exterior close by with
respect to the reference object; finally far describes a far away exterior with
respect to the reference object As we have come to these distinctions by
examining motion verbs, we conclude that language structures space in the
same way whatever sort of lexical items (motion verbs or spatial prepositions)
we examine. We talk about (spatial/spatiotemporal) relations and not about
(spatial/spatiotemporal) zones14 below for the following reason. Consider, for
example,15 our plane and our runway in the sentences (26) and (27). If we want
to define a zone of contact between the plane and the runway, we have to
construct this zone as the union of all the spatial positions the plane can occupy
so long as it is, in one way or another, in contact with the runway. This will
result in a zone whose height is equal to the longest dimension of the plane (and
so a tone determined by imagining the plane in a vertical position and its nose
in contact with the runway). It is then easy to place in such a zone the plane in
its canonical position at, let's say, one metre up from the ground. So, the plane is
inside the zone of contact but definitely not in a relation of contact with the
runway. In conclusion, it would be false to say that the plane is in contact with
the runwayjust because it belongs to the zone of contact. Belonging to the zone
of contact is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be in contact.
C))
178 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
Axiom 1
R(x,y)^?(x,Z-R{x,yj)
'proximity limits'
Z-contact-transit
Z-contact
Reference
Location
Z-outer-most
Z-inner-halo
With our relations defined in Section 4.2, we have at our disposal seven generic
locations linked to a given referent (see Figure 1). Talk about locations,
however, suggests zones and not relations. We have shown why such zones
cannot be defined simply relative to the reference location but rather must be
defined relative to the referent, the target, and some relation of spatial
inclusion.18 These zones must obey certain constraints given by the relations we
have introduced. But we can still define the relevant zones by the following
axiom scheme 1. Let R. be any one of our seven generic relations, and Z R
the corresponding zone.
Note the use of an implication and not an equivalence relation in this axiom
scheme. Now for the definition of the relevant R-zone, we appeal to a notion of
physical possibility that is quite restricted; we are interested in the possible
positions of x with respect to y without any deformation or change in the shapes
or volumes of x and y. We also suppose that the reference location y then does
change.
Axiom 2
Z - R(x, y) = U [z: O(z - STref{x) AR(x, y))}
Lexical entries: 6
Examples: s'avancer to moveforward; accourir to rush up
Explanation: Such verbs describe a motion going from a far away outside
to a near outside of a location of reference.
2. Name of the group: Arriver to arrive
Logical definition: Arrive(e) -
(P(Source(e),Z-outer-most(cible(e),Lref(e))) A
P(SIP(e),Z-outer-halo(cible(e),Lref(e)))A
P(Goal(e),Z-inner-halo(cible(e)Xref(e)))}
Lexical entries: 23
Examples: aller to go; venir to come
Explanation: Such verbs describe a motion going from a far away outside
to the inside of a location of reference, via a near outside of this location.
Our axiom scheme and definition of zones yields the picture of their
interrelation as depicted in Figure 1.
In this section we will concentrate on the verbs of change of location. The
zones we have so constructed can be considered as locations; they have
functionality and they can, even if rarely for some, be lexicalized in different
ways. We are then able to subclassify these verbs on the basis of which locations
the moving entity is inside, at the beginning, the middle, and the end of its
motion, respectively. Not all the possibilities are lexicalized in French. We have
listed 216 lexical entries for French intransitive verbs of change of location,
which can be dispatched in ten groups. Nine of them correspond to a change of
location in the pure sense of location. The tenth one is a little more special and
we will return to it at the end of this section.
180 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
Lexical entries: 16
Examples: debarquer to land; jaillir to spring (up)
Explanation: Such verbs describe a morion going from the inside to a
near outside of a location of reference, crossing its 'frontier'.
182 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
We propose the schema depicted in Figure 2 for our ten groups of verbs of
change of location.
'proximity limits'
'ideal trajectory'
Z-inner-halo
Devier to deviate
iate\
Z-outer-most
As Talmy (1983) noted, motion complexes, and for us verbs and prepositions,
can focus on particular spatial portions of the STref of a motion. We will make
use of (especially in Section 4.5) the Initial, Median, and Final polarities
defined in Boons (1985) and Laur (1991). Items with an initial polarity focus on
the source of the motion, items with a median polarity on the SIP, and items
with a final polarity on the goal of the motion.
Our groups S'eloigner, Partir, Sortir, Decoller, and Devier have an
Initial polarity. Our groups S'approcher, Arriver, Entrer, and Se poser
have a Final polarity. Our group Passer has a Median polarity.
Z-outer-most
Prepositions
Positional
outer-halp
outer-most
inner-halo
contact
chez; dans
sur, contre
sous; derriere; a
loin de
at; in
on; against
below; behind; at
far awayfrom
Initial
directional
de chez
desur
de derriere
de dehors
from -'s
from on to
from behind
Medial
positional
par
through
au fil de
le long de
au-dela de
along
beyond
j usque dans
j usque sur
vers
pour
up on to
towards
for
Final
positional
up to the inside of
Figure 3
184 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
In providing rules for lexical entries, we must extend our formal language.
Roughly, we will be going from a syntactic parse of a motion complex to the
semantic conditions introduced in the DRS. We avoid any issues here about
incremental parsing, and in any case we will need information both about the
verb and its arguments to introduce the appropriate semantic conditions into
the DRSs. To expand our formal language, we will use ^ as a variable for
motion complexes from which we may isolate the verb and prepositional
phrase adjuncts; though the fragment we will codify here only makes use of one
prepositional phrase adjunct, our language will be general enough to handle
more prepositional phrases, v will range over verbs in these complexes while n
will range over prepositions. Polarity will be used to denote the polarity of the
verb (Polarity (v)) or of the preposition (Polarity(jr)); IZone(v, mobile(e),l),
MZone(v,mobile(e),l) and FZone(v,mobile(e),l) will denote the kind of
initial, median, and final zone intrinsically implied by the verb, the mobile, i.e.
the moving entity, and a location, which may depend on e, the eventuality that
it is an argument to the motion verb of the motion complex. PrepZone(ji,mobile(e),l) will denote the kind of zone intrinsically implied by the
preposition and its arguments; Ns(^) will denote the location introduced by the
noun phrase in the PP of the motion complex; the question mark (?) will denote
a location that will have to be matched with some location given by the
discourse (in previous or following sentences) by anaphora resolution in DRT
(Asher & Wada 1989). Finally the DR-theoretic lexical entry for an item v will
be denoted v.
Figure 4 illustrates, for each of our ten groups of verbs of change of location, the polarity Polarity (v) and the zones in which the moving entity is
located at the initial (variable IZone (v,mobile(e),l)) median (variable
MZone(v,mobile(e)), and final (variable FZone(v,mobile(e),l)) stage of the
groups displacement, respectively.20 These zones will be related to the
Source(e), SIP(e) and Goal(e) by axioms later on in this Section.
We show in Figure 5, for each group of directional prepositions the polarity
(Polarity(jr)) and the spatial 'zone' it suggests (PrepZone(^,mobile(e),l)).
This 'zone' (cf. remark made in Section 4.3) is a function of the moving entity,
the location introduced by the preposition and the preposition itself.
Finally, we show in Figure 6, for each group of positional prepositions the
spatial 'zone' (PrepZone(^,mobile(e),l)) it suggests.
Now we propose the following compositional rules (under the form of
logical axioms), with some discursive explanations. In Axioms 11 and 12, >
denotes the weak conditional of DICE used in Asher etal. (1993), Lascarides &
Asher (1993), and Asher (1992b). As in the treatment of 'Discourse in
Commonsense Entailment' or DICE developed in Lascarides & Asher (1993),
Groups of
verbs of
change of
location
Decoller
Sortir
Partir
S'eloigner
Devier
S'approcher
Arriver
IZone
MZone
FZone
I
I
I
I
I
F
F
F
F
M
Z-contact
Z-inner-halo
Z-inner-halo
Z-outer-halo
Z-inner-halo
Z-outer-most
Z-outer-most
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-halo
Z-contact-transit
Z-inner-transit
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-transit
Z-inner-transit
Z-outer-transit
Z-outer-halo
Z-inner-transit
Z-contact-transit
Z-inner-halo
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-most
Z-outer-most
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-halo
Z-inner-halo
Z-inner-halo
Z-contact
Z-outer-halo
Figure 4
Directional
prepositions
Polarity
PrepZone
de chez
de sur
de derriere
de dehors
I
I
I
I
Z-inner-halo
Z-contact
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-most
jusque dans
j usque sur
vers
pour
F
F
F
F
Z-inner-halo
Z-contact
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-most
par
M
M
M
M
Z-inner-halo
Z-contact
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-most
au fil de
le long de
au-dela de
Figure 5
Positional
preposition
PrepZone
chez; dans
sur; contre
sous; derriere
loin de
Z-inner-halo
Z-contact
Z-outer-halo
Z-outer-most
Figure 6
>ntrer
Se poser
Passer
Polarity
186 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
Asher (1993), and Lascarides & Asher (1991), we will later label consituents of a
discourse representation as having certain properties, and we will reason about
lexical properties within Commonsense Entailment.
Axiom 3
[Verb(v, (f>) A Change-of-location(v) A v(e)}
P(Source(e), IZone{v, Mobile(e), Lref{e)))
Axiom 4
{Verb(v, </>) A Change-of-location (v) A v(e)} -*
P(SIP(e), MZone{v, Mobile(e), Lref(e)))
Axiom 6
{Verb(v, (j>) A Change-of-location(v) A v(e)
A Preposition{71, (/>) A Directional_Prep{n)
A Polarity{v) = Polarity{n))
Lref(e) PrepZone{n, Mobile(e), stref(Ns(ji)))
Axiom 6 says that when the preposition is directional with the same polarity
as the verb (e.g. sortir de la maison to go out of the house) the reference location
(Lref(e)) is a zone given via PrepZone (Z-inner-halo, in our example) and
processed with respect to the Ns (la maison in our example). Compare that, for
example, witli sortir de derriere la maison to go out of the back ofthe house, where
the reference location (Lref(e)) cannot directly correspond to the location
introduced by die noun phrase (here la maison), but has to be built using the
PrepZone (here Z-outer-halo for the preposition de derriere) to give the zone
of the back ofthe house.
Axiom 7
[Verb(v,0) A Change-of-location(v) A v(e)
A Preposition(n, <f>) A Directional_Prep(n)
A Polarity(v)* Polarity(n) A Polarity(n) = /}
- \P(Source(e), PrepZone(n, Mobile(e), stref{Ns(n)))) A Lref(e) - ?}
Axiom 5
Axiom 8
[Verb(v, <j>) A Change-of-location(v) A v(e)
A Preposition(n, <j>) A Directional_Prep(n)
A Polarity(v) / Polarity(n) A Polarity(n) M)
), PrepZone(ji, Mobile(e), stref{Ns(n)))) A Lref(e) - ?}
Axiom 9
[Verb(v,<j>) A Change-of-location(v) A v(e)
A Preposition(n,0) A Directional Prep(71)
A Polarity(v) # Polarity(n) A Polarity(n) - F]
/ ( 4 PrepZone(jt), Mobile{e), stref(Ns (jt)))) A Lref(e) - ?}
Axiom 10
[Verb(v, </>) A Change-of-location(v) A v(e)
A Preposition {n,<f>) A Positional_Prep(n)
A Polarity(v) = /)
- [P(Goal(e), PrepZone {it), Mobile (e), stref(Ns(ji)j)) A Lref(e) - ?}
Axiom 10 says that when the preposition is positional and the verb Initial
(e.g. sortir dans to go out in/into) the Goal is a part of a zone given via PrepZone,
and processed with respect to Ns; the reference location remains unmatched.
Axiom 11
Axioms 7,8, and 9 say that when the preposition is directional with a polarity
different from the verb (which is Initial (e.g. sortir par to go out through), Medial
or Final) the Source, Path, or Goal, respectively, is a part of a zone given via
PrepZone, and processed with respect to the Ns; the reference location remains
unmatched.
188 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
Axiom 12
{Verb(v, (j>) A Change-of-location(y) A v(e)
A Preposition (n,<j>) A Positional_Prep(n) A Polarity(v) = M
A 3 ({Info(a. p) A <r, a , p) A Lref(e) - ?
A P(Goal(e), PrepZone(n, Mobile (e), stref(Ns(n))))},
R(a,P)AR*
Narration AR*
Result)
A-
({/H/o(a,0)A<r,a,/J>},
Axiom 12 is similar to Axiom 11. When the preposition is positional and the
verb Medial (e.g. courir dans to run into), and if the fact that the Goal is a part of a
zone given via PrepZone and processed with respect to Ns enables us to deduce
in CE a discourse relation R, other than Narration or Result, that we cannot
deduce without this information, then we infer that the Goal is so determined.
The reference location remains unmatched.
Axiom 13
{Verb(v, (/>) A Change-of-location (v) A v(e) A Preposition{n, (j>) A Positional_Prep(n)
A Polarity'(v) - F}
- Lref(e) = PrepZone(ji, Mobile(e), stref(Ns(jt)))
Axiom 13 says that when the preposition is positional and the verb Final (e.g.
entrer dans to go into) the reference location is the zone given via PrepZone, and
processed with respect to the Ns.
Having detailed in axiomatic form the lexical entries for verb classes and
classes of prepositions and their combination, we propose to illustrate their
application with the following example: (28), (29) and (30).
28. Leticia est arrivee par le jardin
Leticia has arrived by the garden
29. Eva est sortie de derriere la maison
Eva has gone out via the back ofthe house
30. Ines est passee sous le porche
Ines has passed under the porch
We will derive DRSs for these sentences, so we now briefly mention our
views on the construction of DRSs and the syntax/semantics interface. We
Qto
This structure says that the discourse referent introduced by the partial DRS
above can fill in the argument position in a predicative DRS, which is
introduced, for example, by the common noun jardin:
jardin(u)
They combine to yield the following partial DRS for the noun phrase le
jardin:
jardin(x)
QM
Before turning to the first example we should stress again that we take
Mobile, Goal, Source, and SIP to pick out semantic arguments of a motion verb;
we will use functions, e.g. mobile(e), goal(e), to refer to them. Now, as we have
seen, sometimes other elements of the motion complex specify what these
various semantic arguments are. We are skeptical that syntax alone can
determine which part of the motion complex specifies which argument in
every case, especially with regard to spatial prepositional phrases. Certain lexical
conditions or elements in the discourse context (some of which we have
P(x)
190 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
codified in the rules above) determine whether, for instance, the spatial prepositional phrase determines the goal or not.
With this in mind let us consider example (28) within the bottom-up DRS
construction procedure. We take a syntax of the form shown in Figure 7 with a
VP internal subject (though this is not essential). Now we simply go back up the
tree using the expansions given above of the conditions given by the lexical
11
tense
1
est
/
DP
Leticia
Figure 7
VP
VP
PP
/\
11
P'
/ / \\
DP
arrivee
par
lejardin
Xe
ux
Leticia(x)
mobile(e) x
P(Source(e), Z-outer-mos^xJ-re^e)))
P(SIP(e), Z-outer-halo(xXref(e)))
P(Goal(e), Z-inner-halo(xrLref(e)))
XvXPke'
u Z-inner-halo(STref(mobile(e '
P(e')
Lref(e') = ?
which, when combined with the translation of le jardin, yields:
XPke'
u = Z-inner-halofSTre^mobile^'^STrefjV))
Since the structure above has a lambda abstract for a property variable, it may
combine widi the property from the VP, given above, to give us:
ke
ux
Leticia(x)
mobile^') x
P(Source(e'), Z-outer-most(xJLref(e')))
P(SIP(e'),Z-outer-halo(x,Lref(e'))))
P(Goal(e'),Z-inner-halo(xJ-ref(e')))
u Z-inner-halo(STref(mobile(e')),STref{v))
jardin(v)
In (28), we also have the directional preposition par which implies that
Polarity (n) = M A PrepZone = Z-inner-halo. Because of the directional
preposition and Polarity(v) = Polarity(n) and Polarity(ji) M, we can apply
Axiom 8, which gives us: P(SIP(e), Z-inner-halo (stref(mobile (e)), stref(Ns(n))))
A Lref(e) ?. We will exploit the function argument structure of the syntax
and propose the following translation of the preposition in this case:
192 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
Now we apply the partial DRS (given just below) derived from the inflection
node in the syntactic tree that gives us the temporal conditions and introduces
an eventuality filling in the event argument place in the partial DRS given just
above.
XP
P(e)
e<n
This is then the completed DRS for (28). Note that Lref(e) has not been
determined and so must be determined anaphorically.
Leticia(x)
mobil(e) x
P(Source(e), Z-outer-most(x,Lref(e)))
P(SIP(e),Z-outer-most-halo(x,Lref(e)))
P(Goal(e), Z-inner-halo(x,Lref(e)))
u Z-inner-hal(STref(mobile(e)),STref(v))
jardin(v)
e<n
In the derivation of the DRS for (28), of course, the prepositional phrase does
not determine the Lref. In (29), however, it does. We will suppose the same
syntactic structure as for (28), but our rules for expanding DRS conditions will
yield different conditions within the predicative and partial DRSs introduced
by the lexical items.
In (29), sortir implies that Polarity (v) / A IZone = Z-inner-halo A MZone =
Z-inner-transit A FZone Z-outer-halo. With this information and Axioms 3,4,
and 5, we obtain a predicative DRS looking for an eventuality argument as
above for (28). Now we attack the adjoined PP. We have a directional
preposition de derriere which implies that Polarity(n) I A PrepZone Zouter-halo. Because of the directional preposition and Polarity(v) = Polarity(n),
we apply Axiom 6, which gives us: Lref(e) = PrepZone (n Mobile (e ),stref(Ns (JI )))
as the translation of the preposition, whose translation again will exploit the
function argument structure of the syntax. When this is combined with the
partial DRS derived from la maison, we have the following partial DRS for the
adjoint PP:
e uxn
XPXe'
u Z-outer-halo(STref(mobile(e)),STrefm)
When this is combined with the predicative DRS derived from the VP and
the information from the inflection node in the syntactic tree, we obtain:
e vux n
Eva(v)
P(Source(e), Z-inner-halo(STref(v),u))
P(SIP(e),Z-inner-transit(STref(v),u))
P(Goal(e),Z-outer-halo(STref(v),u))
mobile(e) v
u z-outer-halo(STref(v),STref(x))
Lref(e) - u
maison(x)
e<n
194 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
e vuxn
Ines(v)
porche(x)
P(Source(e), Z-outer-halo(STrefjV), u))
P(SIP(e),Z-inner-halo(STref(v),u))
P(Goal(e),Z-outer-halo(STref(v),u))
mobile(e) = v
u = z-outer-halo(STref(v),STref(x))
Lref^e) u
e<n
e vx n
Ines(v)
P(Source(e),Z-outer-halo(STreiiy),Lref(e)))
P(SIP(e),Z4nner-halo(STref(v),Lref(e)))
P(Goal(e),Z-outer-halo(STref(v),Lref(e)))
P(Goal(e), Z-outer-halo(STref(v), STref(x)))
mobile(e) v
Lref = ?
porche(x)
We thus obtain two interpretations for (30), both possible in French: the first
one, the median interpretation, where Ines is in front of the porche, goes
through it, and reaches the other side, the second one, the final interpretation,
where the location sous le porche is the ending point of her displacement.
or:
accident report, one would conclude that the airplane's path was strongly linear
in this case. Some verbs of change of position like graviter to orbit are nonlinear
though most others are weakly linear like the displacement verbs. Some verbs
of inertial change of place like courir to run do not make any demands on the
locational path of the eventuality they describethey are neither linear or
nonlinear.
Just as we saw that one could calculate the position for the target
compositionally on the basis of the properties of the verbs and prepositions, we
can also easily calculate the properties of linearity of verb complexes based on
the properties of the prepositions and constituent verbs. Roughly, the
calculation is simply a matter of unification. If a verb or preposition is linear it
may not combine with something with a nonlinear value. Again we can use the
notation here of a first order language in which we reason declararively about
constraints on constituents. Because there are few if any strongly linear motion
196 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
verbs or prepositions we look only at the weakly linear cases. After each axiom
we offer as example a verb complex governed by it. We give axioms that cover
all the change of location verbs and change of place verbs.
A x i o m 14 Non-linear{Verb) A Weakly-Linear(Preposition) -* 1
Example: *graviterjusqu'a Mars
to orbit to Mars
Axiom 15 Non-linear(Preposition) A Linear(Verb) 1
Example: "oiler autour du Gers
to go round the Gers
A x i o m 16 Weakly-linear(Preposition) A Weakly-linear(Verb) -* Weaklylinear(Verb-complex)
Example: allerjusqu'a Paris
to go to Paris
Axiom 17 Non-linear(Preposition) A Non-linear(Verb) Non-linear(Verbcomplex)
Example: grauiter autour d'une planete
to orbit round a planet
passe compose with the passe simple sense); for a more complete study see
Asher & Bras (1994, forthcoming). The CSL in our restricted study is the
spatiotemporal location of the target once the action has been completed. Thus,
we can formulate Axiom 18 relative to our verb complex types where the verb
has the passe simple tense (PS).
Axiom 18 PS(a)^ CSL(a) = Goal(ea)
The axioms governing the various zones and the reference point will help us
situate the CSL relative to locations mentioned in the constituent a.
On the discourse side, we have several discourse relations that can affect the
relationships of the CSLs of one constituent with another. Axioms 19-28 come
again from the studies of Asher (1992b) and Asher et al. (1993), in which the
discourse relations examined were Narration, Background, Precondition,
Elaboration, Explanation, and Result. Their definitions and semantics can be
found in Asher et al. (1993) and Asher (1993).
198 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
The deduction of which discourse relation relates the two constituents takes
place as in Asher et al. (1993) within a nonmonotonic framework, which was
first elaborated in Lascarides & Asher (1991, 1993). Narration is the discourse
relation that we infer by default between constituents when no other
information overrides this default. This is the case here. In example (31), the
first clause has a motion verb complex that fits the antecedent of Axiom 13,
which makes the garden the location of reference. Thus, we have, through
Axiom 5, that the goal of the action is situated in the garden, and we know,
through Axiom 18, that the CSL is in the garden too. Axiom 13 also
disambiguates dans for us, since it in effect makes the preposition directional,
specifying the goal. Since Narration holds between the two constituents, we can
apply Axiom 19 and arrive at CSL(a) source^). But since the verb in /3 is not
a verb of change of location, we conclude that the source(e^) goal^), i.e. they
occur in the same location, which is specified by the previous clause. This
entails that he danced in the garden, which is what is desired.
The same holds for the second discourse (32), except that we know that
s'asseoir to sit down is a change of posture verb; if we assume that changes of
posture and changes of position do not change location, then Axiom 19 for
Narration yields that he sat down in the garden.
Finally, the sequence of motion verbs in the third discourse (33), assuming
once again that Narration holds between the two constituents, shows us that
the source of the running is in the garden, but with the help of Axiom 17 we
know that the goal of the running is not just a simple inertial change of position
but a displacement to another location the Fac.
Narration is not the only discourse relation that can be inferred in discourse
contexts, of course. The following pair shows how we can disambiguate
prepositions using the discourse context and particular discourse relations.
These notions involving plans can be made formally precise, but the
inference is quite complicated. Only if a is a displacement from inside the
salon to outside the salon and the enclosure (house or apartment) can it be taken
where > is the weak conditional of DICE used in Asher etal (1993), Lascarides
& Asher (1993), and Asher (1992b). We will revise this rule shortly, but already
this approximation serves to indicate how inferences in DICE exploit defaults.
The antecedent of this conditional entails the more general antecedent to the
default for Narration given below:
2oo A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
to be part of a plan of catching the cat. For in order to catch the cat one has to go
where the cat is, and the cat is, as is stated in /J, outside the enclosure while the
target Jean is inside the enclosure, something which we know from the first
clause of the second sentence from the semantics of a travers through. By
Explanation and the axioms governing the CSL, we conclude that the source of
courir to run must be inside the enclosure, and in attempting to make the action
of running part of the plan to get the cat, we infer that the goal of the running is
the garden and thus disambiguate the preposition dans. The same explanation
goes for (3 5). The second sentence of the second discourse gives us again an
explanation in terms of plans. But a quite different plan is involved. Again
depending on extralinguistic information about plans and also about
intentional states, we can obtain different semantic effects.
In this last section, we offer a discussion of the literature on the subject and a
comparison with our own work
Two different approaches can be found in the literature: a syntactic one
(followed among others by Wunderlich, Maienborn, Guillet, etc.), and a
semantic one (followed among others by Hays, Dervillez-Bastuji, Lamiroy,
Boons, Laur, etc.). These approaches are quite different but they also share some
common points.
correspond to our verbs of change of location except those which are verbs of
placement, but we also find in the examples he gives verbs like wandern to hike
which are verbs of change of position for us. The syntactic criteria used here
appear not to be completely adequate for the kind of classification we need.
36.
37.
38.
39.
39.
40.
Maienborn (1992) distinguishes between Positionsverben (which correspond to (part of) the verbs oflocation of Wunderlich), and Bewegungverben
(which correspond both to the verbs ofplacement and the verbs of movement of
Wunderlich). Her subclassification is also based on a difference between
locative and directional PPs. She nevertheless does not differentiate verbs which
accept only directional (final) prepositions from those which accept all dynamic
prepositions. She notes rather that locative PPs denote the property of being
localized with respect to a 'path'.
This classification is closer to ours than Wunderlich's. Bewegungsverben
are our verbs of change of location; Positionsverben are our verbs of change
and inertial change of position and change of posture.23 She also considers
differentiating between 'region' and 'path' as important for the notion of
localization.
Guillet (1990) prefers to talk about locative verbs, which are those verbs
which accept a locative 'compliment'. By locative 'complement', Guillet means
a 'complement' answering the question Oil? where?, but it is not a circumstantial
'complement' of location (the French complement circonstanciel de lieu). He
neither refines his class oflocativeverbs nor gives a precise definition of it, but we
can nevertheless see through his work that he distinguishes verbs which, for
him, do not clearly denote a change of location (e.g. braquer to turn (the wheel),
remuer to move / tofidget ...). With this consideration, we can say that all these
verbs are our verbs of change of posture, and the remaining ones, his 'locative
verbs', our verbs of change of location and change of inertial change of
position.
These syntactic approaches then do not furnish completely adequate and
precise criteria for a classification of motion verbs. Nor, unfortunately, do the
syntactic approaches cover all the verbs we would like. As Wunderlich remarks
himself (1991), his definitions work well only for simple verbs in English or
German, such as sitzen to 5/7,stellen toput,werfen to throw, gehen towalk. But
there are many other verbs which already contain the locative predicate.24 He
202 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
gives the examples of the English verb to enter, the German25 verb bereisen to
travel in, the Spanish verbs entrar to move into, salir to move out, pasar to move by.
We can also add the French verb quitter to leave. It is true that some of them
allow the expression of the relatum of the location by a direct object, which is
evidence the syntactic approach; but not all of them, unfortunately.
We remark that those verbs which run into trouble with a syntactic
approach are easily recognized as 'motion verbs' with a semantic approach.
Other very problematical verbs, such as chercher to lookfor or sonner to ring, are
clearly rejected by a syntactic approach, but could eventually be recognized by a
semantic approach, if there is some need of them for some particular
application.
We do not wish, with this negative conclusion, to imply that a syntactic
approach for motion verbs classification is ineffectual. On the contrary, we
think that, although this kind of approach alone is not sufficient, it can
introduce some important elements that corroborate semantical criteria built
on classifications.
oblique direction). They use in the passe compose the auxiliary avoir. They
correspond to both our verbs of change and inertial change of position.
The third class contains verbs of movement of the body, which denote
neither a direction nor a displacement from one location to another, but rather
a change of posture or state. They correspond to our verbs of change of posture.
Boons (1985, 1987) is the most careful of these authors. He thinks that the
class of'morion verbs' is one of the most curious and interesring lexical class of
Every non-oriented motion is equivalent with a state. This state can manifest itself as rest or as
agitation. To this rest or this free morion is opposed displacement, which is considered as an
oriented-path directed morion defined by its direction and, in a second rime, by its meaning
(Dervillez-Bastuji 1982)
204 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
6 CONCLUSION
We have presented a typology for motion verbs and motion verb complexes
which enables us to draw a detailed spatiotemporal semantics of motion
expressions. We have also shown that a formalization of the calculus for our
compositional semantics can be integrated in a Discourse Representation
the language. But he nevertheless realizes that this class is completely vague.
Such verbs can denote a proper displacement of a body as well as displacements
of one part with respect to other parts of a body. He then prefers to focus on the
first interpretation of these verbs and avoids precise delimitation of the general
class of the so-called 'motion verbs'.
He considers, as does Dervillez-Bastuji (1982), the distinction between the
change and the non-change of location as a crucial one. This (theoretically)
leads him to the distinction between motion verbs and displacement verbs.
Our verbs of change of location clearly belong to his motion verbs and our
verbs of change of posture to his displacement verbs. But for our verbs of
change and inertial change of position, the situation is absolutely unclear. If we
refer to the definitions given by Boons, they must belong to the class of his
motion verbs. But in fact, through the examples and the lists he has given,
they appear in his class of displacement verbs.
Laur (1991) uses the concept of change. But unlike Lamiroy who is talking
about only change of position in space, she is talking about change of state,
shape, posture, or position of animate or inanimate bodies. She has also raised
the ambiguity present in the work of Boons by subdividing the displacement
verbs into three subclasses with respect to a criterion of polarity (already
introduced by Boons), that is the differentiation between verbs with an initial, a
medial or a final polarity. Such verbs are naturally called initial verbs,
median verbs, and final verbs. She has this time produced a list of verbs
which accord with the definitions used. Initial and final verbs are our verbs of
change of location. Median verbs are our verbs of change and inertial change
of position. Figure 8 summarizes all the comparative works mentioned in this
section. When we look at this it seems that the class of'motion verbs' is a really
complex class, especially because of the different terminologies and the
different ways and 'tools' used by each author to tackle this difficult problem.
But in presenting the different authors' works by way of confrontation and
superposition, we hope we have shown that the classifications are in fact
compatible (as is clearly depicted in Figure 8). The fact that these works have
been achieved on the basis of different kinds of criteria, such as syntactical,
semantical, and conceptual criteria, and that they have arrived at compatible
classifications, gives these classifications a very strong validity.
Asher&
Sablayrolles
verbs of change
of location
Wunderlich
verbs of
verbs of
.
placement movement
Bewegungverben
Maienborn
verbs of
change of
position
verbs of
inerrial change
of position
verbs of
change of
posture
.
,,
verbs 01 locaaon
Positionsverben
Guillet
Verbes locarifs
other verbs
Hays
Transposition verbs
nontransposition
verbs .
Displacement verbs
Latniroy
verbs of direction
Boons
displacement verbs
Agitation verbs
verbs of displacement
verbs of
movement
of the body
Laur
Initial and
.
verbs
Figure 8
AND
(by definition) ~*
final
,. , ,
Medial verbs
motion verbs
motion verbs
DervillezBastuji
206 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
The approach and the methodology we have followed for this work suggest
considerable promise and we are presently continuing our investigation on this
basis.
Received: 10.01.94.
Revised version received: 29.07.94
NICHOLAS ASHER
Centerfor Cognitive Science
University of Texas
CRG 220
Austin, TX 78712
USA
e-maihnasheT@jeeves.la.utexas.edu
NOTES
1 To be more precise, we should talk about
7 For example, a kitchen is normally a place
a change of relation between the whole
one recognizes as being one where people
moving entity and the location.
can cook and eat, a street one on which
cars and people move, a house a place in
2 Rather, we should talk about a change of
which people live . . . In contrast,
relation between the position defined by
positions (see Definition 2) have no such
the moving entity and some referential
functionality. An unmarked part of the
fixed part of the background location
street has no associated activity and is not
(such as a border).
recognizable as such. It can only be
3 More precisely, we should talk about a
defined deictically (which may involve
change of relation between some part of
referring to the position of some object by
the moving entity and the location.
ostension or by the use of coordinates).
4 The relevant parts of the moving entity
which are concerned by the relation are
8 In our French terminology: un emplacenot directly expressed in the sentence but
ment.
they can generally be inferred from
9 They can only be lexicalized with deictic
lexical informations derived from the
constructions like here, this position, the
motion verb.
position Mary occupies now.. .
5 In our French terminology: un lieu.
10 In our French terminology: une posture.
11 Note that Talmy also has the notion of a
6 This portion of space can be a bit of
location of reference. He also considers
ground, such as in the square or the lawn,
secondary locations of reference, which
or the space occupied and defined by an
could prove useful to us. But we will
object, the inside of which is a cavity, such
forgo these here.
as in the house, or not a cavity, such as in
the bench .
12 This is of course no longer the case once
PIERRE SABLAYROLLES
IRIT
UniversitePaul Sabatier
118 Route de Narhonne
F-31062 Toulouse Cedex
France
e-mail:sablay@ irit.fr
2o8 A Typology and Discourse Semantics for Morion Verbs and Spatial PPs in French
REFERENCES
Asher, N. (1992a), 'A truth conditional, Boons, J. P. (1987), 'La notion semanrique de
default semantics for the progressive', Lindeplacement dans une classification synguistics and Philosophy, no. 15.
taxique des verbes locatifs', Langue
Francaise, 76, 5-40, December.
Asher, N. (1992b), 'Spatiotemporal structure
in texts', in S. Akama (ed.), Festschrift for II Borillo, M. & P. Sablayrolles (1993), 'The
Onishi, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
semantics of morion verbs in French', ProAsher, N. (1993), Reference to Abstract Objects in ceedings ofthe ljth International Conference on
Natural Language Processing ofAvignon, 24Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
28 May 1993, Avignon, France.
Dordrecht.
Asher, N. & M. Bras (1984), 'Le raisonnement Clarke, B. L. (1981), 'A calculus of individuals
based on "Connection"', Notre Dame
non monotone dans le construction e la
Journal of Formal Logic, 22/3, 204-18, July
structure temporelle de textes en francais',
1981.
RFIA.
Asher, N. & M. Morreau (1991), 'Common- Clarke, B. L. (1985), 'Individuals and points',
sense Entailmenn a modal theory of nonNotre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 26/1,
monotonic reasoning', in Proceedings of 61-75,January 1985.
IJCAl-91.
Davidson, D. (1967), 'The logical form of
action sentences', in N. Rescher (ed.), The
Asher, N. & P. Sablayrolles (1994), 'DecomLogic of Decision and Action, University of
posirional semantics for morion verbs in
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
French', forthcoming.
Asher, N., M. Aurnague, M. Bras & L. Vieu Dervillez-Bastuji, J. (1982), 'Structure des
(1993), 'Space, rime and discourse', Proceedrelations spatiales dans quelques langues
ings of the Dagstuhl Seminar on Universals in naturelles: introduction a une theorie
the Lexicon and Proceedings of the Workshop semantique', Library Droz, Geneva-Paris.
on Temporal and Spatial Reasoning, IJCAI. Guillet, A. (1990), 'The classification des
Asher, N. & H. Wada (1989), 'A computaverbes transitifs locatifs', PhD. thesis,
tional account of syntactic, semantic and
Universite Paris 7, LADL, 1990.
discourse principles for anaphora resolu- Hays, E. M. (1989), 'On defining motion
tion\ Journal ofSemantics, 6: 309-344.
verbs and spatial prepositions', Bericht B61,
SFB 314: VTTRA, Fachbereich 10Aurnague, M. (1991), 'Contribution a l'etude
Informatik IV, Saarbriicken, Germany,
de la semantique formelle de l'espace et du
October 1989.
raisonnement spatial: la localisation
interne en francais, semanrique et struc- Jsckendoff, R. & B. Landau (1992), '"What"
tures inferentielles', Ph.D. thesis, Univerand "Where" in spatial language and
site Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France,
spatial cognition', BBS Report, Cambridge
February.
University Press, Cambridge.
Aurnague, M. & L. Vieu (1993), 'Toward a Kamp, H. (1979), 'Events, instants and
formal representation of space in lantemporal reference', in R. Bauerle, U. Egli
guage: a commonsense
reasoning
& A. von Stechow (eds), Semantics from
approach', in Proceedings ofIJCAI-93.
Different Points of View, Springer Verlag,
Berlin, 376-417.
Boons, J. P. (1985), 'Preliminaires a la classification des verbes locatifs: les comple- Kamp, H. & A. Rofideutscher (1992),
'Remarks on lexical structure, DRS
ments de lieu, leurs criteres, leurs valeurs
aspectuelles', Linguisticae Investigationes, 9/ construction and lexically driven inferences', Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen des
2,195-267.