Transcript Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon
Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon Elena Paducheva
VINITI RAN, Moscow [email protected]
, http://www.lexicograph.ru
Boulder CO, October 3, 2008
Outline
• Decompositional semantic representation as a base of the verb taxonomy • "Lexicographer" – a semantic database of Russian verbs • Argument structure, aspect and event structure • From decomposition to taxonomy • Description of meaning shifts • Formalization of the event structure • Formatted definitions and verb classes
Semantic classifications of verbs
Russian National Corpus (http://www.ruscorpora.ru): semantic tagging based on the extensive semantic classifications of the lexicon – nouns – adjectives – pronouns – adverbs – verbs
Semantics of lexicon & Grammar
• Fillmore 1977, Wierzbicka 1980, Lakoff 1977 • Apresjan 1974, Melchuk 1974: lexicographic definitions = decompositional semantic representations (DRS)
A catches up B
= ‘A and B move in one direction, A is behind B, the distance from A to B diminishes’ (Apresjan 1974: 108)
Decompositional semantic representations
DSRs are hierarchically organized structures: • semantic roles • causation • aspect These aspects of verb’s meaning, previously studied independently of one another, are closely related.
The DSRs are aimed to explain interrelations between
semantics
and
morphosyntax
.
Regular polysemy in the taxonomy
Meaning is flexible and context dependent; regular polysemy is widespread in verbal lexicon (Apresjan 1974).
Both
meaning
and
meaning shift
must be accounted for.
Thematic and aspectual classes
Two classifications of verbs: •
Thematic, or ontological classes
(Levin 1993, Wierzbicka 1987 for English; Babenko 2001, Shvedova 2007 for Russian). Verbs of MOVEMENT, EXISTENCE, PHYSICAL IMPACT, PERCEPTION, EMOTION, SOUND, etc.
•
Aspectual classes
(Vendler 1967, Dowty 1979, Wierzbicka 1980, Jackendoff 1991, Kustova, Paducheva 1994, Paducheva 1996…). STATES, ACTIVITIES, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ACHIEVEMENTS; ACTIONS, HAPPENINGS and TELIC PROCESSES
DB Lexicographer
• The semantic database of Russian verbs • http://www.lexicographer.ru
• Kustova, Paducheva 1994, Kustova 2004, Paducheva 2004 • Ca. 300 verbs • Separate entry for each meaning of the verb; LEXEME is a word taken in one of its meanings
Lexical entry
Main domains of the entry: • Legend • Category • Thematic class • Aspect • Argument structure • Decomposition
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’ Legend Category Thematic class Aspect
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure Decomposition
Words Lemmata
Argument structure
VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’ Argument structure
X
vyter
Y (Z-
om
) = X
wiped
Y (
with
Z) Variable Morphosynt. realization Rank Semantic role Thematic class X Y (Z) W Subject Object Center Center Agent Patient person physical entity: with a surface N-Instrumental Periphery Instrument physical entity – Off Screen Theme liquid / substance
Words Lemmata Text files Quit
X wiped W
= K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10
Initial state
| before t
ipso facto
the state of Y was not normal – –
Activity
| at t
Decomposition Manner of action
| X acted upon Y and
ipso facto
upon W (: with the help of Z)
Causation
| К4 was causing К7
Process in Object
| simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y
Result
| new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y has no W on its surface
Entailment
| the state of Y is normal
Implication
| there is no W on the surface of Y;
ipso facto
W does not exist
Words Data recovery Text files Quit
X wiped W
= K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10
Initial state
| before t
Y had W on its surface ipso facto the state of Y was not normal
– –
Activity
| at t
Decomposition Manner of action
|
X acted upon Y
and
ipso facto upon W
(: with the help of Z)
Causation
| К4 was causing К7
Process in Object
| simultaneous with activity; has limit:
W was being removed from the surface of Y Result
| new state of Y came about & holds at the MS:
Y has no W on its surface Entailment
|
the state of Y is normal Implication
|
there is no W on the surface of Y
;
ipso facto W does not exist
Words Data recovery Text files Quit
X wiped W
= K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10
Initial state
| before t
Y had W on its surface ipso facto the state of Y was not normal
– –
Activity
| at t
Decomposition Manner of action
|
X acted upon Y
and
ipso facto upon W
(: with the help of Z)
Causation
| К4 was causing К7
Process in Object
| simultaneous with activity; has limit:
W was being removed from the surface of Y Result
| new state of Y came about & holds at the MS:
Y has no W on its surface Entailment
|
the state of Y is normal Implication
|
there is no W on the surface of Y
;
ipso facto W does not exist
DB Lexicographer what it can be used for?
From Decomposition to the taxonomy: Category
► all verbs of the same
V-category
have the same
decomposition format
, i.e. the same configuration of category components.
(1) The category
Action
: K4.
Activity |
X acted with the Goal in mind K6.
Causation |
this caused K8.
Result |
new state came about & holds at the MS.
e.g.
vyteret’ postroit’
‘wipe’,
razrezat’
‘build’,
pokrasit’
‘cut
vystirat’
‘paint
svarit’
vykopat’
‘dig out’, etc.
‘wash’, ‘boil
From Decomposition to the taxonomy: Thematic class
► all verbs of the same
Thematic classes
have the same (or similar)
thematic components
in the Decomposition.
(2) The thematic class
PHYSIOLOGY VERBS
: e.g.
razbudit’
‘wake up’
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 ‘
X waked up Y by Z
’
=
Initial state
| before t
Y slept
– – –
Activity
| at t
Manner of action
| X acted upon Y: applying Z
Causation
| К4 was causing К7 / К4 caused К7
Decomposition Process in Object
| simultaneous with activity; has limit; telic
Result
| new state of Y came about & holds at the MS:
Y does not sleep Entailment
| –
Implication
| –
From Decomposition to the taxonomy: Thematic class
► all verbs of the same
Thematic class
have the same (or similar)
thematic components
in the Decomposition.
(2) The thematic class
PHYSIOLOGY VERBS
: hyperonym for
sleep
- PHYSIOLOGICAL STATE hyperonym for be ill - PHYSIOLOGICAL STATE also:
razbudit’
‘wake up’,
vyzdorovet’
‘to recover
Description of meaning shifts
► meaning shifts can be presented as operations on Decompositions.
(3)
razbudit’
1 VS
razbudit’ 2
: а.
razbudil
‘woke’ –
Action
Ivan razbudil menja
Ivan.NOM wake.PAST me.ACC rude ‘Ivan woke me up with a rude kick’.
grubym pinkom
kick.INS
b.
razbudil Zvonok
‘woke’ –
v
Happening
dver’ razbudil menja
ringing.NOM in door wake.PAST me.ACC
‘The ringing of the doorbell woke me up.’
Action VS Happening
(#3a) X
razbudil
Y ‘X woke Y’ [Action : ordinary] = K1.
Initial state
| before t
Y slept
K4.
Activity
| at t
Manner of action
| X acted upon Y: applying Z K6.
Causation
| K8.
Result
| К4 was causing К7 / К4 caused К7 causation as a process / new state of Y came about & holds at the MS:
Y does not sleep
causation as an event K9.
Entailment
| K10.
Implication
| (#3b) X
razbudil
Y ‘X woke Y’ [Happening] = K1.
Initial state
| before t
Y slept
K4.
Causer
| at t
Manner of action
| X is an event K6. K8.
Causation Result
| | К4 caused К7 causation as an event new state of Y came about & holds at the MS:
Y does not sleep
K9.
Entailment
| – K10.
Implication
| this is bad for X
Action VS Happening
(#3a) X
razbudil
Y ‘X woke Y’ [Action : ordinary] = K1.
Initial state
| before t
Y slept
K4.
Activity
| at t
Manner of action
| K6.
Causation
| X acted upon Y: applying Z К4 was causing К7 / К4 caused К7 K8.
Result
| new state of Y came about & holds at the MS:
Y does not sleep
K9.
Entailment
| K10.
Implication
| (#3b) X
razbudil
Y ‘X woke Y’ [Happening] = K1.
Initial state
| before t
Y slept
K4.
Causer
| at t
Manner of action
| K6.
Causation
| К4 caused К7 K8.
Result
| new state of Y came about & holds at the MS:
Y does not sleep
K9.
Entailment
| K10.
Implication
| this is bad for X
Happening with the subject of responsibility
(#4) X
razbil
Y ‘broke
Initial state
| normally before t < MS Y was in a state: Y was intact; Y functioned K1.
Exposition
| X was doing something in the vicinity of Y K4.
Causer
| something happened to Y (: X acquired or lost contact with Y; or …) K6.
Causation
| К4 caused К7 K8.
Result
| new state came about & holds at the MS: Y is broken / doesn’t function normally K9.
Entailment
| K10.
Implication
| X caused damage; X bears responsibility for the damage see also
prolit’
‘spill’,
porvat’
‘tear’,
rassypat’
‘scatter’,
peregret’
‘overheat’
Action VS Process
(#5a) X
zapolnil
Y Z-om ‘X filled Y with Z’ [Action : ordinary]
Ya zapolnil kotel wodoj
‘I filled the boiler with water’ Variable Morphosynt. realization Rank Semantic role X Subject Center Agent Y Object Center Location Theme Z N-Instrumental Periphery Medium Theme (#5b) Z
zapolnil
Y ‘Z filled Y’ [Process]
Voda zapolnila bak
‘Water filled the boiler’ Thematic class person container/physical object: has volume mass Z Y Subject Object Center Center Medium Location Theme mass container/physical object: has volume
ZAPOLNIT’ 1.2 ‘fill
W zapolnil Z
‘
W filled Z
’ = K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K0 K8 K9 K10 – –
Initial state
| before t
Process with subject
| at t
Manner of action
|
ipso facto Process in Object
| process in Y was going on: the amount of Z in Y increased; the process has a limit: Y contains maximal amount of Z
Result
| new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y contains maximal amount of Z {Y is full of Z}
Entailment
| Z occupies the whole volume of Y
Implication
|
Thematic shifts-1
The shift in the examples (6) and (7) is a kind of metonymy: attention either to the yard or to sweepings in the yard.
(6) a.
vymesti dvor
‘sweep up the yard’ [vymesti 1.2, thematic class –
TREATMENT
]; b.
vymesti musor
‘sweep up litter’ [vymesti 1.1, thematic class –
REMOVAL
]; (7) а.
vyteret’ posudu
‘wipe the dishes’ [vyteret’ 1.2, thematic class –
TREATMENT
]; b.
vyteret’ sljozy
‘wipe tears’ [vyteret’ 1.1, thematic class –
REMOVAL; ANNIHILATION
].
(#7b)
vyteret’ sljozy
‘wipe tears’ (
wipe
1.1) [ REMOVAL ; ANNIHILATION ] Variable X Morphosynt. realization Subject Rank Center Semantic role Agent Thematic class person W Y Object s + Gen Center Periphery Theme Location Theme liquid/substance: physical entity: with surface (Z) Instrumental Periphery Instrument physical entity (#7a)
vyteret’ posudu ‘wipe the dishes’
(
wipe
1.2) [ TREATMENT ] X Y (Z) W Subject Object Instrumental Center Center Periphery Off Screen Agent Theme person physical entity: with surface Instrument physical entity Theme liquid/substance:
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10
X wiped W from Y (with Z)
=
Initial state
| before t
ipso facto
state of Y was not normal – –
Activity
| at t
Manner of action
| X acted upon Y and
ipso facto
upon W (: with Z)
Causation
| К4 was causing К7
Process in Object
| simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y
Result
| new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: there is no W on the surface of Y
Entailment
| W does not exist
Implication
| Y has no W on its surface; the state of Y is normal
Thematic shifts - 2
Other examples: (8) а.
vykopat' kartoshku
‘dig out potatoes’ [
MOVEMENT
]; б.
vykopat' jamu
‘dig a hole’ [
CREATION
]; (9) a.
Pulja probila furazhku
‘the bullet pierced the cap’ [
DEFORMATION
]; b.
Pulja probila dyru v furazhke
the cap’ [
CREATION
].
‘the bullet pierced a hole in
Aspect: Accomplishments VS Achievments
In Russian
Accomplishments
undergo imperfectivization. A derived Ipfv of an accomplishment is also an
Accomplishment
– but viewed in a synchronous perspective.
(10) a.
Vanja s”el jabloko
‘Vanja ate an apple’; b.
Vanja est jabloko
‘Vanja is eating an apple’.
As for
Achievements
, a derived Ipfv of an achievement is either a
Perfective state
, see (11), or a
Tendency
, see (12): (11)
Ja ponjal
‘I’ve understood’ –
Ja ponimaju
‘I understand’. (12)
John vyigral
John will win’.
‘John won’ –
John vyigryvaet
‘most probably,
Ballistic movement & momentaneity
One of the sources of the momentaneity (Paducheva 2004) is the component ‘Process in the Object: non-simultaneous with the activity of the Subject’.
(13)
pokrasit’
‘paint’ [Action: ordinary] K7.
Process in Object
| simultaneous with the activity; has limit (14)
brosit’
‘throw
vzorvat’
‘explode’,
otravit’
‘poison’,
ubit’
‘kill’.
Decausativization
Also causative alternation (Levin, Rappaport Hovav 1995) (15a) Vanja razbil okno.
VanjaNOM breakPAST windowACC ‘Vanja broke the window’ (15b) Okno razbilos’.
windowNOM break.SJA.PAST
‘The window broke’ (16a) John zakryl dver’. ‘John closed the door.’ (16b) Dver* zakrylas*.
‘The door closed’. (17a) On zaper dver’ na zasov.
‘He bolted the door.’ (17b) *Dver’ zaperlas’ na zasov.
doorNOM bolt.SJA.PAST
Decausativisation (2)
(#5.1)
Y utomil X-a
‘Y tired X’ Initial state| before t < MS X was in a state: normal Causer| at t event Y took place Causation| Effect| tired this caused new state of X came about & holds at the MS: Х is Entailment &Implication | (#5.2)
X utomilsja (ot Y-a)
* = ‘X became tired (because of Y)’ Initial state| before t < MS X was in a state: normal Periphery causer| at t event Y took place Background causation| New state| is tired this caused new state of X came about & holds at the MS: Х Implication| Causer is not relevant
References
• Апресян 2006 – предикатов. // Отв.ред. Ю.Д.Апресян. Языковая картина мира и системная лексикография. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2006, 75 109.
Ю.Д.Апресян
• Atkins, Kegl, Levin 1988 – • Fillmore 1977 –
Fillmore Ch. J.
. Фундаментальная классификация
Atkins B. T., Kegl J., Levin B.
Verb Entry: from Linguistic Theory to Lexicographic Practice // International Journal of Lexicography. Vol. 1. No. 2. 1988. P. 84–126.
The case for case reopened // Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8. N. Y. etc., 1977. P. 59–81.
Anatomy of a • Haspelmath 1993 – inchoative / causative alternations // B. Comrie, M. Polinsky (eds). Causation and Transitivity. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993.
• Paducheva 2001 • Paducheva 2003 – 2003, 173–198.
Haspelmath M.
• Levin, Rappaport 1995 –
Levin B., Rappaport H. M.
syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.
………………………………………….
Paducheva E.
More on typology of the Is there an "anticausative" component in the semantics of decausatives? Journal of Slavic Linguistics, v. 11, N 1, • Какую-нибудь вашу книгу, Елена Викторовна?
Unaccusativity: At the