Метаязык описания семантической структуры значения лексической единицы

Дисциплина: Введение в лексическую семантику Раздел 2: Метаязык описания семантической структуры значения лексической единицы Автор: Амирова Оксана Георгиевна, к.филол.н., доцент кафедры англ. языка Обязательно к изучению по Направлению 44.04.01 Педагогическое образование (уровень магистратуры), Направленности (профилю) «Языковое образование (английский язык)» (с использованием дистанционных технологий) OUTLINE OF LECTURE BIBLIOGRAPHY 3 INTRODUCTION 4 1. Interaction of Semantic Structure and Lexical Meaning 4 1.1. Lexical Aspect 4 1.2. Semantic Features 8 1.2.1 Semantic Features of the Noun 8 1.2.2 Semantic Features of the Verb 9 2. Theoretical Approaches to Semantic Roles Identification 14 2.1. A List of Semantic Roles suggested by Dowty 14 2.2. A List of Semantic Roles suggested by Levin 17 3. Process of Lexicalization and Verb Semantic Classes 20 3.1. Description of Lexicalization Process 20 3.2. Description of Verb Semantic Classes 24 4. Semantic Properties of Nouns, Adjectives and Adverbs 28 4.1. Semantic Properties of Nouns 28 4.1.1 Process of Nominalization 28 4.1.2 Structural Properties of Nominals 29 4.1.3 Componential Properties of Nominals 30 4.2. Semantic Properties of Adjectives 33 4.3. Semantic Properties of Adverbs 36 GLOSSARY 39 BIBLIOGRAPHY Normative Legal Acts 1. Федеральный закон от 299.12.2012 № 273-ФЗ (ред. От 30.12.2015) «Об образовании в Российской Федерации» – Режим доступа: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_law_140174/ 2. Федеральный закон от 27.07.2006 № 149-ФЗ «Об информации, информационных технологиях и защите информации» – Режим доступа: http://base.consultant.ru?cons?cgi?online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=183056 3. Приказ Министерства образования и науки от 09.01.2014 №2 «Об утверждении Порядка применения организациями, осуществляющими образовательную деятельность, электронного обучения, дистанционных образовательных технологий при реализации образовательных программ» – Режим доступа: http://base.garant.ru?70634148/ 4. Федеральные государственные образовательные стандарты. – Режим доступа: http://fgosvo.ru/ Main List: 5. Brinton J. Laurel The Structure of Modern English: a Linguistic Introduction [Электронный ресурс] – John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010. Режим доступа: https://benjamins.com/catalog/z.94 6. Geeraerts Dirk Theories of Lexical Semantics [Электронный ресурс] – Oxford University Press, 2010. Режим доступа: http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/qlvl/dirkg.htm Optional List: 7. Кобозева И.М. Лингвистическая семантика [Текст] – М.: УРСС, 2000. – 352 с. 8. Апресян Ю.Б. Избранные труды. Т. 1. Лексическая семантика. Синонимические средства языка [Текст] – М.: Школа языка русской культуры, 1995. – 472 с. 9. Падучева Е.В. Семантические исследования. Семантика времени и вида в русском языке. Семантика нарратива [Текст] – М., 1996. – 464 с. Introduction To the first approximation, lexemes are language units representing words in the connected speech, so lexical semantics is the study of word meaning. The main reason why word-level semantics is especially interesting from a cognitive point of view is that words are names for individual concepts. Thus, lexical semantics is the study of those concepts that have names. The question: What can word mean?, then, amounts to the question: What concepts can have names? There are many more or less familiar concepts that can be expressed by language but for which there is no corresponding word. For example, there is no single word in English that specifically names the smell of a peach or something, though presumably there could be. Furthermore, it is common for one language to choose to lexicalize a slightly different set of concepts than another. For example, American speakers do not have a noun that is exactly equivalent to the British toff – conceited person from a high social class thinking that he is very intelligent (though being very arrogant). Nor does every language have a verb equivalent to the American bean – to hit on the head with a baseball bat. So one of the questions that lexical semantics answers is the reasons for existence / non-existence of concept names in this or that language. 1. Interaction of Semantic Structure and Lexical Meaning 1.1. Lexical Aspect As the verb performs the key role in the formation of the sentence, we’ll start our discussion with interpretation of lexical meaning of this part of speech. The aim of the lexical aspect, as far as the verb concerns, is to define a common notation for Actionality and Aspect. The concrete use of aspect is to mark verbs, in syntactic contexts, in order to identify the nature of the action: e.g. whether it is perfective or imperfective. The notion of aspectuality has traditionally come to cover a number of distinct but closely related phenomena and approaches strictly intertwined with the notion of event and event structure. Let’s consider the following examples: (1) a. John loved Mary for/*in three years b. John ran for/*in three hours c. John ate an apple *for/in three minutes d. John reached the top of the mountain *for/in three days As can be seen, the reported verbs differ as to their capability to combine with for- and in-adverbials. This and many other examples lead scholars to revive and renew a classification of verbal predicates dating as far back as Aristotle. For instance, it is now common to talk about stative predicates (to love, to know), activities (to run, to push), accomplishments (to eat, to drink, to write) and achievements (to find, to note). It has been noted that these predicates differ as to their internal constitution and their temporal properties. Consider, for instance, (1a). There is a clear indication of a three-year period in which the predicate to love was true. On the other part, for any sub-period of the three-year period, the predicate to love can still truthfully apply. Similar considerations hold, at least to a certain extent, of activities. Surely, there are sub-periods of a running that still qualify as running; that is, they show the subinterval property. On the contrary, predicates such as eating an apple do not display the same behavior. If it took three minutes to eat an apple, as in (1c), then there is no subpart of this period to which the predicate eat an apple can be applied. In this respect achievements pattern with accomplishments. In the literature, these facts have been described by resorting to the notion of cumulativity and/or divisibility. Statives and activities are divisive whereas accomplishments and achievements are not. It should be noted that the nature and properties of the direct object of such verbs as to eat yield different acceptability results when confronted with in- and for-adverbials. In other words the existence of a specific quantity of matter as a referent for the direct object can affect the telic nature of a predicate: (2) John ate an apple in/*for three minutes John ate apples *in/for three minutes Thus, the contrast is explained by stipulating that in- for-adverbials select for activities or accomplishments predicate; that there can be a passage of formal properties from arguments to predicates and such a property is encoded by thematic-relations. We can also state that actionality as semantic feature emerges not as a property of isolated verbs (or verbal stems) but, rather, as a combination of a verb and its argument, e.g. (3) a. John ran for/*in two hours b. John ran home *for/in two hours These cases are basically similar to those discussed above, with the difference that the affecting factor is not a specified quantity of matter, as with many accomplishments, but a spatial path provided with a specific end point. Consider the following example: (4) John walked around the castle for/in ten minutes. Both the in- and the for- adverbials are acceptable. However, the sentence changes its meaning accordingly. If the for-adverbial is chosen, then no completion of the around-the- castle tour is entailed. That is, John might have been walking around the castle for a certain period of time, without completing its tour. On the other hand, the in-adverbial forces a telic reading. The explanation of this contrast calls for such notions as telicity and perfectivity. In fact, the perfective/imperfective distinction plays a crucial role for expressing telicity. Teloses (also called culminations, natural end points, etc..) only arise with perfective aspect and can be revealed by the in- for-adverbials test. Also, teloses depend on the actional value of the complex predicate. Thus, such predicates as eat an apple are characterized by telicity, if perfective. On the other hand, predicates such as eat apples, run, etc.. remain non-telic even when perfective. Thus, the semantic feature of telicity may be represented by the formula: a. Process & + culmination = telic action (She ate an apple) b. Process & -culmination = atelic action (She ate apples) Here the process is to be understood as a term incorporating Vendler’s activities and accomplishments. Notice, that, according to what was said above, the fact that a predicate is telic, in the sense just defined, does not entail that any actual telos is given, because aspectuality must be considered: a. telicity & perfectivity = + telos (She ate an apple) b. telicity & imperfectivity = -telos (She was eating an apple) Finally, there are predicates which always produce teloses, that is achievements. In this respect, they can be seen as being both lexically telic and perfective. To sum it up we can state that actionality results from the combination of the lexical properties of the verb together with those of a designated argument. Aspectuality, on the other hand, is a morphosyntactic property, depending on the presence of appropriate specifications of particular verbal forms. Finally, telicity lies somehow in between actionality and perfectivity, in many respects depending on both. However, we should mention that there is a class of verbs, the so called achievements, which are always telic and always actualize teloses. Concerning natural language analysis in general, lexical aspect and actionality play a role in determining the grammatical and semantical interactions between predicates and other parts of the sentence, both arguments and modifiers. With respect to the former we should mention such semantic features as habituality, event quantification, the mass/count distinction and so on, as cases in which the aspectual and actional properties of the predicate play a relevant role in determining syntactic and semantic facts. Concerning the matter of applications, it is worth mentioning that because of the kind of (semantic) information provided, lexical aspect is important for all systems which must be able to detect and reason about events. This is true of information and knowledge extraction systems, dialogue management systems, etc... and in general for all the cases in which it is important to tell whether an action/event, as presented in the text or during the dialogue, is terminated/finished or whether it can continue at the speech time or at any other focalization time. Furthermore, actionality is crucial to establish the appropriate relationships between the various events presented in the text/dialogue: simultaneity, overlapping, precedence, etc... Within machine translation a proper mastering of these notions is crucial to improve the quality of the translation by selecting/producing the appropriate constructions in the target language. 1.2. Semantic Features Componential analysis is an attempt to give a semantic analysis of words in terms of semantic features or components. The principles of this analysis were first initiated and developed in the works of Kats and Fodor (1963). It consists in determining the basic components representing the semantic content, or sense, of a word. These components, sometimes called semantic primitives, or universals, are assumed to be the basic notions expressed by linguistic meaning, the “units” of the semantic system which cannot be broken down further by semantic analysis. Furthermore, they are thought to be universal, not language specific, part of the cognitive and perceptual system of the human mind. According to the linguist Manfred Bierwish, all semantic structures might be finally reduced to components representing the basic dispositions of the cognitive and perceptual structure of the human organism. These components combine in different ways to form the meaning of individual words. Every word of the language consists of a unique bundle of semantic features, which combine in different ways in different languages, that is, they are lexicalized differently, resulting in a number of various vocabularies of different language systems. 1.2.1 Semantic Features of the Noun Semantic features are usually presented as a matter of opposition of positive and negative features, denoting the presence or absence of a particular feature in the meaning of the word. Since semantic features are theoretical elements, not part of the vocabulary of the language; they are represented abstractly by capitalizing them and placing them in square brackets. The process of determination of semantic features can be seen more clearly in a semantic feature analysis of a livestock paradigm: Table: Componential analysis of a livestock paradigm Man Boar Bull Cock Dog Stallion Ram [+MALE] [+ADULT] Woman Sow Cow Hen Bitch Mare Ewe [-MALE] [+ADULT] Child Piglet Calf Chick Puppy Foal Lamb [+/-MALE] [-ADULT] Boy Shat Bullock Chick Dog puppy Colt Ram lamb [+MALE] [-ADULT] Girl Gilt Heifer Chick Bitch puppy Filly Ewe lamb [-MALE] [-ADULT] Crowd Drove Herd Flock Pack Herd Flock [COLLECTIVE] [+HUMAN] [+ SWINE] [+BOVINE] [+ CHICKEN] [+ CANINE] [+ EQUINE] [+ SHEEP] [-HUMAN] The table is read as follows: all the words in the second row, for example share the features [-MALE] and [+ADULT], while all the words in the third column share the feature [+BOVINE], and so on. While the words in the first column share the feature [+HUMAN], those in the other columns share the feature [-HUMAN]. 1.2.2 Semantic Features of the Verb Now let us have a closer look at the analogical decomposition of verbal lexemes. A complete analysis of verbs requires characterization of the inherent temporal nature of the situation named by the verb, which is based on a number of semantic features. There are a number of ways in which inherent processual semantics can be defined, but for general classification it is sufficient to identify four semantic features for verbal predicates: 1. [+/-STATIVE]: this feature recognizes whether the situation denoted by the verb involves changes [-STATIVE] or not [+STATIVE]; it is said that a dynamic situation requires the input of energy, whereas a static situation does not. 2. [+/- DURATIVE]: this feature recognizes whether the situation goes on in time [+DURATIVE] or occurs at the moment in time (punctual / instantaneous) [- DURATIVE]. 3. [+/-TELIC]: this feature recognizes whether the situation has an endpoint or goal which is necessary for the situation to achieve [+TELIC] or has no necessary conclusion [-TELIC]. 4. [+/-VOLUNTARY]: this feature recognizes whether the situation is intentional [+VOLUNTARY] or not [-VOLUNTARY]. On the basis of these features different situation types are identified. The best-known typology is that of Zeno Vendler (1967), which distinguishes four situation types: 1) States (e.g. love, resemble): [+STATIVE] [+DURATIVE] [-TELIC] [-VOLUNTARY] 2) Activity (e.g. push, run): [-STATIVE] [+DURATIVE] [-TELIC] [+/-VOLUNTARY] 3) Accomplishment (e.g. dress, use up): [-STATIVE] [+DURATIVE] [+TELIC] [+/-VOLUNTARY] 4) Achievement (e.g. kick, blink): [-STATIVE] [-DURATIVE] [+TELIC] [+/-VOLUNTARY] Let’s give a short characterization to each verbal type. Thus, states denote unchanging situations such as emotional, cognitive, and physical states, conditions, or qualities. States continue over the entire time period in which they exist. Examples of states are predicates in Philip (loves, suspects, resembles, expects) somebody. Stative expressions can be identified by a number of formal properties: • states are generally expressed in the simple, not the progressive form, because the progressive indicates the situation which is ongoing and changing, e.g. * Philip was loving Brigit; • states last in time indefinitely with no necessary end and answer the question “How long…”; • a person cannot be commanded, forced or persuaded to be in a state because a state is not a matter of volition or will: *Love Brigit! *His mother forced him to love Brigit; • for the same reason no manner adverbs can accompany a stative expression: Phillip cannot love Brigit deliberately, attentively, or carefully; • states start and stop, but they cannot be finished: Philip (started, stopped, *finished) loving Brigit; • states cannot occur in constructions expressing the fulfillment of some action since states are not done: *What Philip did is loved Brigit. Other examples of states (taken from Vendler) are the following: know, like, dislike, be married, have, desire, hate, believe, dominate, see, possess, want, rule, think that, understand, see, etc. Activities are dynamic situations which go on in time (potentially indefinitely). Examples of activities are the predicates in Jesse is (reading, pushing the cart, daydreaming, talking with Janice, staring at the picture, sitting on the bed). Activities last for a period of time and answer the question “How long…” Like states, they do not take any definite time nor have any definite end and that’s why cannot be finished; they can only begin or end. Activities go on in a homogeneous way; they are constant over a period of time in which they happen. An activity may be either continuing (e.g. argue, talk, walk) or changing (e.g. grow, improve, decline). A test for activities is that if one stops doing something, than one has done something (If Jesse stops talking to John, than he has talked to John). Other examples of activities from Vendler are the following: run, look, pull, pay attention to, swim, watch, observe, gaze, scrutinize, think about, housekeep, keep in sight, etc. Although activities are frequently [+ VOLUNTARY], they may also be [- VOLANTARY], as in the following cases: The water is flowing, Her hair is turning grey, The child is growing. Such activities cannot be commanded. Accomplishments are dynamic situations with a terminal point or climax which is logically necessary for them to be what they are. Thus, in the examples Sybil (wrote a letter, went to the store, cooked dinner), it is necessary for the endpoint to be reached (that is the letter to be produced, the store to be reached, the dinner to be completed) for the accomplishment to occur. Therefore, the test for accomplishments is that if one stops doing something, than one has not done something (If Sybil stops writing a letter it means that she has not written a letter); she has simply worked on the letter. Accomplishments, unlike states and activities, can be finished: if Sybil finishes writing the letter, she has written a letter. Because of their necessary ends, accomplishments take a certain amount of time and answer the question: How long did it take? Accomplishments do not go on in a homogeneous way, but consist of an activity phase and a terminal point, which are different in nature. Finally, accomplishments are ambiguous with almost: if Sybil almost wrote a letter, she may have written a part of the letter or she may not have even begun the letter (just thought about it). Other examples of accomplishments taken from Vendler are the following: run a mile, write a letter, paint a picture, deliver a sermon, draw a circle, build a house, get exhausted, make a chair, give a class, attend a lecture, recover from an illness, get ready, play a game of chess, etc. Note that accomplishments can be [+ VOLUNTARY], e.g. run a mile, get ready, or [- VOLUNTARY], e.g. get exhausted, grow up. Achievements are dynamic situations that are conceived of as occurring instantaneously, as in Roger (reached the top of the mountain, flicked the switch on, solved the problem). They are punctual acts or changes of state. [+ TELIC] is not really a relevant category here because achievements end as soon as they begin, though they are often described as [+ TELIC]. Achievements occur at a single moment in time and answer the question: at what time… They can also answer the question: how long did it take? but the meaning of achievements in this case is different from the meaning of accomplishments: It took Sybil an hour to write a letter implies that at any moment during that hour she was working on the letter; but It took Roger an hour to solve the problem doesn’t imply that at any point during that hour he was working on the problem: he may have been working on the problem during that time or not. In fact, achievements seem to fall into two classes: those that are truly instantaneous (such as kick, flick, tap) and those, though they name a culminating point, usually involve a preliminary process (such as find, generally preceded by looking for; reach the top, generally preceded by working one’s way towards the top). When the process leading up to the endpoint and the endpoint are named by the same verb, the progressive is possible: He died at 5.00 / He was dying. The plain arrived at 5.00 / The plain was arriving. Otherwise, the progressive is either incompatible with achievements (* She is recognizing a friend) or denotes the repetition of the achievement either by a singular subject (He is kicking the ball) or multiple subjects (The guests were arriving gradually). Other examples of achievements taken from Vendler are the following: die, win the race, recognize, realize, cross the border, be born, spot something, find, lose, resume, understand, get married, catch a dog, notice. Achievements are often [+VOLUNTARY], e.g. cross the border, kick the ball, catch a dog; though they can be [-VOLUNTARY], e.g. lose, spot. You may have noticed that it is often not just the verb alone, but also other parts of the predicate figure in the determination of the situation type. First, the addition of a nominal object may contribute to the notion of goal and thus change an activity into an accomplishment: She sang (activity) – She sang a song (accomplishment) She worked (activity) – She worked the crossword puzzle (accomplishment) Moreover, the count qualities of the object are significant; with mass and indefinite plural objects, the activity status is unchanged, while with definite plural objects, the activity is converted into an accomplishment: She sang (activity) – She sang songs (activity) She sang (activity) – She sang the songs (accomplishment) The count qualities of the subject may effect the situation type as well: The runner (sin) crossed the line (achievement) Two runners (pl) crossed the line (accomplishment) Prepositional phrases which denote either a spatial goal or temporal limit may also convert an activity into an accomplishment: He walked (activity) – He walked to the shore (accomplishment) Particles such as up, down, out, off, through may have the same effect: She used the paper (activity) – She used up the paper (accomplishment) (However, not all the prepositional phrases and particles change an activity into an accomplishment: He walked in the woods (activity) – He walked along (activity)) For these reasons we speak of situation type rather than verb type, with the former consisting of the verb and its arguments, which may radically change the meaning of the whole construction. 2. Theoretical Approaches to Semantic Roles Identification 2.1. A List of Semantic Roles suggested by Dowty Semantic relations were introduced in generative grammar during the mid-1960s and early 1970s (Fillmore 1968, Jackendoff 1972, Gruse 1967) as a way of classifying the arguments of natural language predicates into a closed set of participant types which were thought to have a special status in grammar. Semantic roles are dealt with under a number of different names in the linguistic literature, including thematic relations, participant roles, deep cases, semantic case/roles and theta roles. In Dowty’s adaptation a list of the most popular roles and the properties usually associated with them is the following: Agent: A participant which specifies the meaning of the verb as doing or causing something, possibly intentionally. Examples: subjects of kill, eat, hit, smash, kick, watch. Patient: A participant which characterizes the verb as having something happen to it, and as being affected by what happens to it. Examples: objects of kill, eat, smash but not those of watch, hear, love. Experiencer: A participant who is characterized as being aware of something. Examples: subject of love, object of annoyance. Theme: A participant which is characterized as changing its position or condition, or as being in a state or position. Examples: objects of give, hand; subjects of walk, die. Location: The thematic role associated with the NP expressing the location in a sentence with a verb of location. Examples: subjects of keep, own, retain, know; locative PPhs. Source: Object from which motion proceeds. Examples: subjects of buy, promise; objects of deprive, free, cure. Goal: Object to which motion proceeds. Examples: subject of receive, buy; dative objects of tell, give. (adapted from Dowty 1989) The theoretical status of semantic roles in linguistic theory is still a largely unresolved issue. For example, there is considerable doubt about whether semantic roles should be regarded as syntactic, lexical or semantic/conceptual entities. Another open issue, connected with the previous one, is whether semantic roles should be considered a primitive part of linguistic knowledge or as a derivative notion of some specific aspect of the form-meaning mapping. However, the most common understanding is that semantic roles are semantic/conceptual elements (for further information you can refer to Jackendoff 1972, 1990, Rappoport 1988, Dik 1989). In addition to the described approach, other model-theoretic formalizations are presented. Thus, Dowty [Dowty 1989] defines thematic role types as abstractions of individual thematic roles of specific verbs. The individual thematic role of a verb is defined as the set of all properties which the verb entails for a given argument position. For example, the individual role for the subject argument of the verb to kill would characterize only the killer participant. A thematic role type can then be defined as the intersection of some set of individual thematic roles. For example, the role type Agent would be the set of all entailed properties shared by a particular individual role of verbs such as kill, eat, hit, smash, kick, watch. Dowty himself makes it clear that this method is not guaranteed to yield useful results. Even assuming that each individual role will effectively intersect with at least another individual role, the number of resulting role types might just be too big to be useful in all applications. More generally, the identification of an appropriate set of semantic roles is problematic; in practice this means the number of roles varies significantly across different proposals. The problems just pointed out have led several scholars to put forward alternative conceptions of semantic roles. Although from different angles, these all criticize the use of rigidly fixed conditions for the identification of roles, and advocate more flexible approaches. These approaches appear particularly suitable for the construction of large scale lexicons since they overcome many problems of role identification inherent to traditional approaches, i.e. the difficulty in enumerating precise criteria which qualify the conceptual meaning of a given semantic role. Thus, Dowty [Dowty 1991] proposes to abandon the use of discrete role types to provide a total indexing of verbal arguments in favor of a weaker method where the relation between role types need not be unique. Dowty assumes that there are only two ''thematic-role-like concepts'' for verbal predicates: the Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient role. Proto-roles are conceived of as ''cluster-concepts'' which are determined for each choice of predicate with respect to a given set of semantic properties. The properties which contribute to the definition of the Proto-agent are those of volition, cause, movement, etc.; the properties which contribute to the definition of the Proto-patient are those of change of state (including coming-to-being, going-out-of-being), something causally affected by event, stationary object or phenomenon (relative to movement of Proto-Agent). 2.2. A List of Semantic Roles suggested by Levin Beth Levin [Levin 1993] proposes to extend the functionality of Dowty's prototype roles by including in the defining clusters properties which are instrumental for the identification of semantic verb (sub)classes. For example, it is well known that at least six subtypes of psychological verbs can be distinguished according to semantic properties of the stimulus and experiencer arguments (see Jackendoff 1990), as shown in the following Table: Table: Psychological verb subclasses STIMULUS EXPERIENCER EXAMPLE non-causative source neutral reactive emotive experience non-causative source positive reactive emotive admire non-causative source negative reactive emotive fear neutral causative source neutral affected emotive interest positive causative source positive affected emotive delight negative causative source negative affected emotive scare For example, the semantic frame of Stimulus being non-causative source and Experiencer reacting neutrally to the emotive stimulus corresponds to verbal lexemes like to experience. The semantic frame of Stimulus being non-causative source and Experiencer reacting positively to the emotive stimulus corresponds to verbal lexemes like to admire. The semantic frame of Stimulus being non-causative source and Experiencer reacting negatively to the emotive stimulus corresponds to verbal lexemes like to fear. The semantic frame of Stimulus being neutral causative source and Experiencer being neutrally affected on the emotive level corresponds to verbal lexemes like to interest. The semantic frame of Stimulus being positive causative source and Experiencer being positively affected on the emotive level corresponds to verbal lexemes like to delight. The semantic frame of Stimulus being negative causative source and Experiencer being negatively affected on the emotive level corresponds to verbal lexemes like to scare. Thus, the semantic features of the verbal arguments determine the use of a specific verbal lexeme. Providing a specification of manner, direction and motion we can analogically characterize the locative predicate class: Table: Motion Verbs Subclasses Manner Direction Motion Verbs + irrespective + swim, walk + + irrespective go, reach + + + swim across - irrespective irrespective sit For example, verbs like to swim are characterized by specific features of manner and motion irrespective to direction; verbs like to go are characterized by specific features of manner and direction irrespective to motion; verbs like to swim across are characterized by specific features of manner, motion and direction; verbs like to sit, on the one hand, are not characterized by specific features of manner and, on the other hand, are irrespective to motion and direction. Of cause, we can’t but admit that the analyzed verbs are associated with different fields of denotation. However the discussed procedure of semantic structure representation may be of much use in describing meanings of synonymic items with overlapping sphere of denotation. (We’ll discuss this matter during the Seminar in detail). Semantic roles are assumed to be the source of grammatical relations in many linguistic theories. Grammar frameworks such as Government and Binding (GB), Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) and Functional Grammar (FG) all state that grammatical relations systematically relate to semantic, or thematic, relations. In particular, semantic roles are the standard devices used for organizing predicate argument structures within the lexicon, where arguments are identified on the basis of semantic roles. Government and Binding, Lexical Functional Grammar and Functional Grammar follow a lexicalist approach to grammar which makes the lexicon the source of syntactic representations; this implies that grammatical relations are, one way or another, projected from predicate argument structures specified within the lexicon. Semantic roles represent another type of grammatical relation - a semantic one - holding between a predicate and its arguments, which can be usefully exploited in Machine Translation, for instance, the abstract information embodied in the semantic roles can be used to map the predicate-argument structures of two translation equivalents such as, for example, the English verb like and the Russian verb нравиться, although the syntactic realization of the two verbs is radically different: namely, what is the subject of English like becomes an indirect object in Russian verb нравиться, while what is the object of like is turned into the subject in the Russian translation. Thus, a characterization of the argument structure of the two verbs in terms of semantic roles attains the purpose of neutralizing their different syntactic behaviour in the specific language. 3. Process of Lexicalization and Verb Semantic Classes 3.1. Description of Lexicalization Process One of the basic goals of lexical semantic theory is to provide a specification of word meanings in terms of semantic components and combinatory relations among them. Different works in lexical semantics converge now on the hypothesis that the meaning of every lexeme can be analyzed in terms of a set of more general meaning components, some or all of which are common to groups of lexemes in a language or even cross-linguistically. In other words, we can identify meaning components which may or may not be lexicalized in particular languages. The individuation of the meaning components characterizing classes of words in a language and of possible combinations of such components within word roots leads to the identification of lexicalization patterns varying across languages. Moreover there is a strong correlation between each combination of meaning components and the syntactic constructions allowed by the words displaying them (e.g., Talmy 1985, Jackendoff 1983, 1990). A trend has recently emerged towards addressing the issues of identifying meaning components lexicalized within verb roots and stating a connection between specific components characterizing semantic classes of verbs and syntactic properties of the verbs themselves (e.g. Levin 1993). The basic goals of research on lexicalization of meaning components are: - to define a set of meaning components; - to provide a description of word meanings in terms of meaning components and combinatory relations among them; - to identify ‘preferences’ displayed by languages for lexicalization patterns. We’ll start with the representation of works on meaning components. Representing complex meanings in terms of simpler ones has generally been considered one of the fundamental goals of semantic theory; however different positions have been taken with respect to various aspects of the issue in works devoted to it. In any case, the following hypotheses are shared by the various positions: - the meaning of every lexeme can be analyzed in terms of a set of more general meaning components; - some or all of these components are common to groups of lexemes in a language, or cross-linguistically. It was componential analysis of word meaning which gave rise to various researches of the same type in Europe. These researches, although different with respect to the specific hypotheses put forward, tried to identify semantic components shared by groups of words by observation of paradigmatic relations between words. The semantic components identified in the various proposals differentiate groups of words and one word from another within a certain group by combining them in various ways. Here is a standard example, showing the kind of analysis usually performed: woman : man : child :: mare : stallion : foal :: cow : bull : calf The most important issues raised in the work on semantic components are the following: - there is the question of whether the meaning components which have been identified/can be identified should be considered 'primitives' or not: i.e., whether they are linguistic/conceptual units of some kind from which all possible meanings in a language can be derived, but which in turn are not themselves derivable from any other linguistic unit; - strictly linked to the above issue is that of the 'universality' of primitives, i.e. if such primitives are the same across languages; - then, there is the question of whether it is possible to identify a finite set of (universal) primitives; - finally, there is the question of identifying a procedure for the definition of semantic components. These issues have been explicitly or implicitly dealt with in theoretical semantic research, in computational linguistics, in philosophy, and in psycholinguistics. The strongest proposal put forward with respect to them is probably that presented by Wierzbicka in a number of works on semantic primitives (Wierzbicka 1972, 1980,1985, 1989). The main goal of these works is to arrive at a definition of a complete and stable set of semantic primitives, by means of cross-linguistic research on lexical universals. These are concepts which are encoded in the vocabulary of (nearly or possibly) all natural languages. In the various stages of her research, Wierzbicka postulated different sets of primitives. While the first set included only 14 elements, later on a set of twenty-eight universal semantic primitives was proposed: I, you, someone, something, this, the same (other), two, all, I want, I don't want, think, say, know, would (I imagine), do happen, where, when, after, like, can (possible), good, bad, kind (of), part, like, because, and very. According to the author, this list should not necessarily be considered final. In any case, the above set definitely works in semantic analyses and has been considered valid through research into lexical universals. The main problem remains, then, to decide what are the universal semantic primitives; i.e., to define a finite and complete set of them. Indeed, while Wierzbicka proposes a complete set of primitives, other scholars analyze different portions of the lexicon: for instance, Talmy [Talmy 1976] describes the various semantic elements combining to express motion and causation; Jackendoff [Jackendoff 1983, 1990] extends the research to semantic fields of motion or location verbs; etc. In any case, by analysis and comparison of different works on the issue, we cannot circumscribe a shared set of primitives which could also be seen as complete. Finally, no clear procedure for identification of semantic components has been so far formalized. Let us have a closer look at some works on lexicalization patterns. Relying on the basic assumption that it is possible to identify a discrete set of elements (semantic components) within the domain of meaning and combinatory relations among them, Talmy [Talmy 1985] carried out a study on the relationships among such semantic components and morphemes/words/phrases in a sentence/text. In particular, he deeply investigated the regular associations (lexicalization patterns) among meaning components and the verb, providing a cross-linguistic study of lexicalization patterns connected with the expression of motion. According to Talmy, a motion event may be analysed as related, at least, to five basic semantic elements: MOTION (the event of motion or location), PATH (the course followed or site occupied), MANNER (the manner of motion), FIGURE (the moving object), GROUND (the reference object). These may be found either lexicalized independently or in combination with one another in the meaning of single words, as can be seen in the examples below (taken from [Talmy 1985]): The rock rolled down the hill FIGURE MOTION + MANNER PATH GROUND On the basis of the study of a number of languages (namely, Germanic, Semitic, Romanic languages) Talmy distinguishes several universal lexicalization types for motion verbs shared cross-linguistically as well as basic lexicalization types for motion verbs typical of a particular language system, e.g. The lexicalization type MOTION + MANNER/CAUSE is typical of English but not, for instance, of Spanish (to roll, to push), while the lexicalization type MOTION + PATH is typical of all Romanic languages but not of English (El globo bajó por la chimenea flotando and La botella cruzó el canal flotando). The suggested kind of meaning representation is strongly correlated to the syntactic properties of the verbs themselves, i.e. with the possibility of verbs occurring with certain arguments. Moreover, a clear identification of the semantic components combined within verb roots in individual languages could be relevant also for isolating semantic classes of verbs. For example, the work carried out within the Acquilex project led to the identification of semantic components lexicalized within the roots of various verb classes. 3.2. Description of Verb Semantic Classes The main approaches to verb classifications are based either on syntactic behaviour (alternations) or semantic criteria such as thematic roles and elements of Lexical Conceptual Structure. In her book, Beth Levin [Levin 1993] shows, for a large set of English verbs (about 3200), that some semantic features of verbs have strong correlations with the syntactic behavior of these verbs and with the interpretation of their arguments. The main practical aim of verb classifications is to contribute to the structure of lexicon and to allow for a better organized, more homogeneous description, of their semantics. From a more formal point of view, the main aims are the identification of meaning components forming the semantics of verbs, the specification of more subtle meaning elements that differentiate closely related verbs and the study of the cooperation between syntax and semantics. She first precisely delimits the different forms of verb syntactic behavior. Each of these forms is described by one or more alternation (e.g. alternations describe passive forms, there-insertions and reflexive forms). Then, she proposes an analysis of English verbs according to these alternations: each verb is associated with the set of alternations it undergoes. The next stage of analysis is aimed at finding sufficient correlations between semantic features of verbs and their syntactic behavior, which allow for the formation of classes. As a result of the study about 200 verb semantic classes have been defined. An alternation, roughly speaking, describes a change in the realization of the argument structure of a verb. The scope of an alternation is the proposition. Modifiers are considered in some cases, but the main structures remain the arguments and the verb. Arguments may be deleted or 'moved', NPs may become PPs or vice-versa, and some PPs may be introduced by a new preposition. Beth Levin has defined 79 alternations for English, which basically describe transformations from a basic form. Here are a few, among the most common, types of alternations. The Transitivity alternations introduce a change in the verb's transitivity. In a number of these alternations the subject NP is deleted and one of the objects becomes the subject. The Middle Voice alternation is typical of this change: John cuts the cake - The cake cuts easily. As can be noticed, it is often necessary to add an adverb to make the sentence acceptable. The Causative alternation concerns a different set of verbs: Edith broke the window - The window broke. Verbs undergoing this alternation can roughly be characterized as verbs of change of state or position. Under transitivity alternations fall also alternations where an object is unexpressed. A number of verbs undergo this alternation. In most cases, the typical object is incorporated into the verb, or deducible from the subject and the verb. This is the case, e.g., for the characteristic property of agent alternation: This dog bites people - This dog bites. Other sets of alternations include the introduction of oblique complements, reflexives, passives, there-insertion, different forms of inversions and the introduction of specific words such as the way-construction. It is clear that these alternations are specific to English. They are not universal, even though some are shared by several languages (e.g. the passive alternation). Every language has its own alternation system, and has a more or less important number of alternations. English seems to have a quite large number of alternations; this is also the case e.g. for ancient languages such as Greek. Romanic languages in general have much fewer alternations, their syntax is, in a certain way, more rigid. Verb semantic classes are then constructed from verbs, which undergo a certain number of alternations. We have, for example, such sets of verbs as Verbs of Removing, Verbs of Carrying and Sending, Verbs of Throwing, Verbs of Holding and Keeping, Verbs of Creation and Transformation, Verbs of Perception, Verbs of Desire, Verbs of Communication, Verbs of Social Interaction, etc. Let us now look in more depth at a few classes and somewhat evaluate the use of such classes for natural language. Indeed, there are aspects which may weaken the practical use of this approach, in spite of its obvious high linguistic interest, from both theoretical and practical viewpoints. The first point is that the semantic definition of some classes is somewhat fuzzy and does not really summarize the semantics of the verbs it contains. Second, there are some verbs which seem to be really outside the class. Finally, distinctions between classes are sometimes hard to make, and this is reinforced by the fact that classes may unexpectedly have several verbs in common. Let us illustrate these observations with respect to two very representative sets of classes: verbs of motion and verbs of transfer of possession. Verbs of Motion include 9 classes: - Inherently directed motion verbs (arrive, go,...), - Leave verbs (leave, abandon,…), - Roll verbs (bounce, float,...), - Run verbs (bounce, jump, ...), - Vehicle name verbs (bike, ...), - Verbs not associated with vehicle names (fly,..), - Waltz verbs (boogie, polka, ...), - Chase verbs (follow, pursue, ...), - Accompany verbs (follow, accompany,…). Note that the labels 'Roll' and 'Run' do not totally cover the semantics of the verbs in the corresponding class. Also, the difference between the two classes is not very clear. Waltz and chase verbs are interesting examples of very specific classes which can be constructed from alternations. However, few domains are represented, and major ones are missing or under-represented (e.g. type of movement, medium of movement, manner of motion, etc.). Verbs of transfer of possession include 9 classes: - Give verbs (feed, give, lease, ...), - Contribute verbs (distribute, donate, submit, ...), Providing: - Fulfilling verbs (credit, provide, ...), - Equip verbs (arm, invest, ...), Obtaining: - Get verbs (book, buy, call, cash, order, phone, ...), - Obtain verbs (accept, accumulate, seize, ...), - Future having verbs (advance, assign, ...), - Exchange verbs (swap, trade for,...), - Berry verbs (nest, clam, ...). In this example, the difficulty of defining the semantics of a class is evident, e.g.: fulfilling, future having: these terms do not exactly characterize the class. Note also the Get class is very large and contains very diverse verbs. Domain descriptions (family, education, law, etc.) as well as moral judgments on the transfer (legal, illegal, robbery) are not accounted for in this classification. Semantics of the verb is closely related to the semantics of the construction. Let us now consider the combination of a verb, with its own semantics, within a syntactic construction. The Construction Grammar approach sheds a particularly clear and insightful light on this interaction; let us present here some of its aspects, relevant to the verb semantic class system. In fact, the point concerns the nature of the verb semantics, the nature of the semantics of a construction and the characterization of the interactions between these two elements. Verbs usually have a central use, characterized by a specific syntactic form, but they may also be used with a large variety of other syntactic forms. In this case, the meaning of the proposition may be quite remote from the initial meaning of the verb. Let us consider a few illustrative cases. In the sentence: Edith baked a cake the initial sense of the proposition is baking: 'Edith INTENDS to CAUSE cake TO BE'. In the sentence: Edith baked Mary a cake the initial sense of bake becomes somewhat marginal, in favor of a more global meaning: 'Edith INTENDS to CAUSE Mary TO HAVE cake'. There is not here a special sense of bake which is used, but bake describes a kind of 'manner' of giving Mary a cake. So, depending on the construction and on the verb, the verb may either play an important part in the elaboration of the semantics of the proposition or may simply express the means, the manner, the circumstances or the result of the action, while the construction describes the 'central' meaning. In fact, the meanings of verbs and of constructions often interact in very subtle ways. One might conclude then that there is no longer a clear separation between lexical rules and syntactic rules. Thus, a verb alone (and its associated lexical semantics) cannot be used to describe the situation of reality; for these purposes it is necessary to take into account the semantics of the arguments. 4. Semantic Properties of Nouns, Adjectives and Adverbs 4.1. Semantic Properties of Nouns 4.1.1 Process of Nominalization Now we are going to cover the basic requirements for encoding the lexical properties of nominals and nominalizations. Although nouns may not seem to encode as much information as verbs, their contribution to the overall interpretation of a sentence is very significant for the following reasons: 1. Nominals contribute towards determining implicit information in the form of ellipsed predicates, e.g. John enjoyed the book means that John enjoyed some event that can be reconstructed from the lexical item book (minimally: read or write). John began the movie means that John began some event that can be reconstructed from the lexical item movie (minimally: show, produce). 2. Similarly to point 1 nominals provide event-based information, e.g. an occasional cup of coffee/cigarette means a cup of coffee that someone drinks occasionally. Or, a long record means a record that plays for a long time. 3. Nominals are responsible for the polysemantic behavior of verbal predicates: 1) ASPECTUAL SHIFTS John painted beautiful portraits (activity) John painted the beautiful portrait (accomplishment) 2) SENSE SHIFTS John uses aspirin (i.e. to feel better) John uses the subway (i.e. to travel) John uses e-mail (i.e. to write) The study of nominal forms in linguistics has usually been carried out within distinct approaches and traditions focuses on different properties of nouns and noun phrases. These reflect two main issues surrounding the analysis of nominals: - the study of their structural properties; - the study of their componential properties. 4.1.2 Structural Properties of Nominals The study of the structural properties of nominal forms has usually been of great concern in syntax, where the aim was that of developing abstract representations that would apply cross-categorically (Chomsky 1970, Jackendoff 1977). One of the keys to this aspect concerns the observation that nominals have relational properties and similarly to verbs they carry argument structure. The argument structure of nominal forms comes in a variety of ways, e.g. the owner of the red car; the book of poetry; BUT the door to the kitchen. Similarly to verbs nominals, especially nominalized forms, are characterized by different semantic roles: e.g. the attack of the troops (AGENT), the defeat of the troops (PATIENT), the acquisition of the stocks (THEME) One important distinction between the arguments of nouns and verbs is that they behave differently with respect to expressibility conditions: with nouns arguments are optional, with verbs they are obligatory: The enemy destroyed the city (obligatory argument) - *The enemy destroyed. the destruction of the city by the enemy (optional argument) - the destruction of the city - the destruction. 4.1.3 Componential Properties of Nominals The problem of how to characterize the semantic structure of nominals has always been at the heart of the studies in lexical semantics. In addition to this type of information, decompositional approaches to the representation of nouns usually assign a set of features which drive the inferences associated with a given nominal. This approach is advocated in Generative Semantics as well as in a number of recent approaches to lexical semantics. The componential analysis of nouns such as bachelor would involve (at least) the following features: [+HUMAN], [+MALE], [-MARRIED]. Thus, componential analysis helps to overcome ambiguity and differentiate polysemy of nominal forms, which represents an important concern of lexical semantics. Contrastive ambiguity, as manifested by the word bank (financial institution, and shore) is handled by multiple representations: bank1 – [+COUNTABLE], [+FINANCIAL INSTITUTION]; bank 2 - [+COUNTABLE], [+SHORE]. The nominal bank1, however, displays a polysemy which is common to company-like entities. This nominal may also have a location (building) interpretation. In this case the polysemy emerges as the result of the structure of the concept, where the location is part of the constitution of an organization. And for the purpose of differentiation of polysemantic items some other components should be included: [+INSTITUTION], [+BUILDING]. The semantics of nominals is closely related to a number of areas in lexical semantics, e.g. the composition with adjectives; the interpretation of nominal compounds; their role in lexicalization processes; their relation with aspect; their interaction with quantification. For example, nominal compounds represent a large part of our vocabulary and involve a great deal of creativity. For this reason they have received a great deal of attention in linguistic research and in computational linguistics, where their analysis has presented a serious challenge for natural language processing systems. The reason for such interest is that the interpretation of Noun-Noun compounds poses serious problems. The strategy for forming English Noun-Noun compound involves combining a modifier noun and a head noun, without making explicit the semantic relation between compound members. The main difficulty consists in recovering the implicit semantic information holding by the nouns, which varies greatly, e.g. coffee cup, coffee producer, coffee machine. Into Russian, for example, the above mentioned compounds are translated with the help of different syntactic patterns: (кофейная чашка, производитель кофе, кофе-машина). That’s why when looking at cross-linguistic data one of the main problems, which requires systematic solutions, consists in the following: - to identify the components relations of compounds in the original language; - to analyze the syntactic patterns of compound translation in the target language; - to formulate dependences between the components relations of compounds and syntactic patterns of compound translation. Quantification within the semantics of nominals is another broad and difficult topic. Within Formal Models the type of entity referred to determines a range of quantificational phenomena: Ordinary countable nouns can take discrete quantifiers to form multiform sets, (a policeman/ two/some policemen (singleton and multiform set of objects)). In case of group nouns, (a squadron/ two/some squadrons (singleton and multiform set of groups)), groups are counted and not the members of the group. In case of collectives, e.g. (some/much traffic (non-discrete collection of objects)), the number of elements is measured and not counted. Genuine substances as in (some/ much water (non-discrete amount of substance)) represent measurements both as referential entities and as conceptual units. Finally, we see a case of quantification of entity types in (three medicines (the number of medicine-types is counted)). The diversity is quantified, nothing is said about the amount of medicine. As far as the predication distribution concerns we have the following models: 1) The police/squadron/policemen carried new equipment (distributive) 2) The policemen carried the piano upstairs (collective) 3) The family loves each other (reciprocal) 4) The committee meets (multiplicity of subject) In (1) we see that the multiplicity (set, group or collective) of the subject and the object explains that we can have distributive, collective and cumulative interpretations: each person carries a single set of equipment, they all carry one set of equipment, any combination is possible. In (2) the fact that a piano is a single ad big individuated object suggests that the subject carries collectively. In the next two examples we see that the multiplicity of the subject is a necessary selection criterion for the reciprocal interpretation of the predicate. As far as the agreement between the nominal and verb concerns we should mention that conditions determining agreement vary a lot across languages. In Russian as different from English, there’s a fixed dependence between the number of the nominal and the conjugated verb, e.g. The family (was, were) at table. – Семья села (*сели) за стол. 4.2. Semantic Properties of Adjectives Adjectives have not much been studied in traditional lexical semantics compared to the large amount of work devoted to verbs and to nouns. They nevertheless present a complicated issue for semantic analysis. Syntactically, they can appear in different positions in the sentence, as modifier of the noun (a sad book) or complement of a link verb like be (this book is sad). Semantically, adjectives, more than other categories, are able to take different meanings depending on their context (for example difficult in a difficult child, a difficult book, a difficult exam or fast in a fast car, a fast motorway, a fast procedure, etc.) Adjectives differ in many ways. We will examine their polymorphism from three different perspectives: syntactic, semantic and ontological. Syntactically, adjectives can be classified with respect to three features: function, complementation and alternation. 1. Function: adjectives can appear in attributive position, as noun modifiers inside NP (A happy person), or in predicative position as a complement of a verb like be, seem, consider, etc.: They are happy, they consider him happy, he seems happy. This criteria allows us to distinguish three different types of adjectives: predicative-only (*afraid people, people are afraid) and attributive-only (the atomic scientist, *the scientist is atomic) for adjectives that are only used in one position, or central for those used both predicatively and attributively, as tall in the following cases: the tall man, the man is tall. [Quirk 1994]. When attributive, adjectives can be both postnominal and prenominal (navigable rivers, rivers navigable), even if the postnominal position is less common in English. But there are restrictions: an adjective like former cannot be postnominal (former architect, *architect former) and some adjectives appear only after the noun (*aforethought malice, malice aforethought). 2. Complementation: As verbs, adjectives differ in terms of their argument structure. Many adjectives accept no complement at all (for example, Belgian, red, etc.). Those that accept complements can be sub classified as follows: - the type of the complement they subcategorize, i.e. prepositional ( I'm proud of you), clausal being a part of VP ( I'm sad to leave) or sentential (It is possible that they leave); - whether the complement is optional or not (I'm desirous to leave, *I'm desirous vs I'm sad to leave, I'm sad); - what prepositional complement it occurs with (for example capable of, skillful at, absent from, etc.). 3. Alternations: As well as verbs, adjectives enter into alternations. Among adjectives that take clausal complement, two subclasses can be distinguished, according to whether this complement may or may not be realized as the subject; e.g. I'm sad to leave - To leave is sad for me Sam was brave to leave - To leave was brave of Sam BUT: I'm eager to come - *To come is eager The adjectives that allow their subject to be clausal can be further classified depending on what preposition marks the accompanying nominal complement, as in the following example. This allows to distinguish four classes of adjectives: S-only and S+toNP adjectives indicate some perception of the modality of the clausal clause; S+ofNP adjectives give an evaluation of an individual, on the presupposition that he is responsible for the state of affairs described in the proposition. Finally, S+forNP adjectives characterize directly a state of affaires, but may also indicate an experiencer. For example: That they left is possible (S-only) That they left is clear to Sam (S+toNP) That he left was brave of him (S+ofNP) To ignore pollution is dangerous for the country (S+forNP) Semantically, adjectives can belong to three different classes, which differ in their logical behaviour in the following way: 1. Absolute adjectives (ADJ) are standardly analyzed as predicates: they denote properties and the denotation of the adjective-noun construction as the intersection of the denotation of the absolute adjective and the noun: this is an square screen - this thing is a screen; this screen is square. Typical examples of this category are adjectives which denote: - a shape: round, oval, etc. - a social group or a nationality: communist, Belgian, etc. - a color: red, green, etc. 2. Property-modifying adjectives are analyzed as operators: they denote a function from properties to properties. Thus, for example, former in (this is a former architect) takes the denotation of architect to the set of individuals who used to be architects. Property-modifying adjectives include: nominal (or relational) adjectives (polar bear, atomic scientist; manner (or adverbial) adjectives (a poor liar, a fast car), i.e. all adjectives which are related to adverbs, quantifiers or determiners. 3. Relative adjectives characterize the individual described by the noun, but, unlike them, it is relative to some norm or standard of comparison: a big mouse, for example, is not a big animal. Adjective taxonomies classify adjectives in the different semantic categories they can express. Dixon [Dixon 1991] has worked out one of the most representative classifications as follows: 1. DIMENSION: big, short, etc. 2. PHYSICAL PROPERTY: strong, ill, etc. 3. SPEED: fast, quick, etc. 4. AGE: new, old, etc. 5. COLOR: red, black, etc. 6. VALUE: good, bad, etc. 7. DIFFICULTY: easy, difficult, etc. 8. QUALIFICATION: DEFINITE (probable), POSSIBLE (possible), USUAL (usual), LIKELY (likely), SURE (sure), CORRECT (appropriate) 9. HUMAN PROPENSITY (склонность, наклонность): FOND (fond), ANGRY (angry, jealous), HAPPY (anxious, happy), UNSURE (certain), EAGER (eager, ready), CLEVER (clever, stupid, generous) 10. SIMILARITY: similar, different, etc. For each class, Dixon specifies the syntactic behaviour of each adjective, as follows: eager takes an NP or a that or modal for-to-complement, e.g. I'm eager for the fray, I'm eager that Mary should go, I'm eager (for Mary) to go. Ready may only take a NP or a modal for-to-clause (not a that complement) while willing must take a that or modal for-to-clause, i.e. it cannot be followed by proposition plus NP. 4.3. Semantic Properties of Adverbs Adverbs represent a particularly heterogeneneous group as regards meaning and use, when compared to nouns, verbs or adjectives. Their diverse behaviour is manifested on the syntactic and semantic plane. Syntactically, adverbs may appear in different positions in the sentence, e.g. as: complements and modifiers of verbs, modifiers of nouns, adjectives, adverbs and clauses. Semantically, adverbs are usually treated as one-place predicates and often subclassified with respect to distinct conceptual notions: a. TIME: now, sometimes b. LOCATION OR MOVEMENT: around, nearby c. MANNER: slowly, well d. DEGREE: extremely, rather e. CAUSE: consequently, therefore f. MODAL: probably, evidently Syntactically, adverbs can be characterized with respect to their function and scope. Adverb or adverb phrases can function as: - complements of verbs: he behaved badly - modifiers of verbs: he run quickly - modifiers of adjectives: a very dangerous trip - modifiers of adverbs: very nicely Adverbs may modify any layer of a clause and the main distinction can be drawn between peripheral and non-peripheral adverbs. Peripheral adverbs take a sentence core (predicate with its arguments) as their argument. The non-peripheral adverbs take a part of the logical structure as their argument. The classification of adverbs delineated below is based on Van Valin's and Lappolla's description, which follows the approach of Jackendoff [Jackendoff 1976]: Adverbs taking a sentence core as arguments Peripheral temporal adverbs like yesterday, tomorrow; evidential adverbs like probably take the logical structure of the core as its argument: Sam baked a cake yesterday. Evidential adverbs in constructions below share semantic representation with their adjectival forms which take complements: Evidently, Sam baked a cake in the kitchen yesterday. - It is evident that Sam baked a cake in the kitchen yesterday. Probably, Sam will bake a cake tomorrow. - It is probable that Sam will bake a cake tomorrow. Adverbs taking a subpart of logical structure as arguments Manner, pace and aspectual adverbs take a subpart of logical structure as arguments. Manner verbs typically modify activity logical structures: The house shook vigorously during the earthquake. Pace adverbs can modify any durative or dynamic logical structure: The door closed slowly. Aspectual adverbs are modifiers of the basic state or activity: The ice melted completely. - The ice completely melted. Unlike the classes of adjectives, verbs and nouns, adverbs constitute a domain of research in lexical semantics which require further investigation. Their selectional properties can be used both as keys to acquire automatically lexical information, as well as a tool for determining modal force of information to be extracted or retrieved. To acquire further information I would strongly recommend to acquaint yourselves with the glossary on the subject under consideration and refer to the list of literature provided. Thank you for your attention. GLOSSARY № Term Definition Reference 1 actant semic group that includes a case seme http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 2 argument roles a semantic ‘slot’ associated with sentence-level constructions such as verb argument constructions including agent and patient and contrasting with the more specific construct of participant roles https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 3 argument structure the number of arguments, that is participants or entities, that a word-level relational predication such as a verb may be combined with https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 4 complementary antonyms expressions which come in pairs and which, between them, exhaust all the relevant possibilities http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 5 constituent semantic feature; there are two types of constituent, semes and primitives http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 6 content plane of the text comprised by the totality of signifiers http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 7 context for a given semantic unit, the totality of units that have an influence on it (active context), and on which it has an influence (passive context) http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 8 cognition the notion relating to all aspects of conscious and unconscious mental function https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 9 cognitive lexical semantics an approach to lexical semantics (word-meaning) that assumes the guiding principles of cognitive semantics https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 10 cognitive lexical semantics an approach to lexical semantics (word-meaning) that assumes the guiding principles of cognitive semantics https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 11 cognitive linguistics an approach to the study of language and the mind rather than a single articulated theoretical framework. It is informed by two overarching principles or commitments: the generalization commitment and the cognitive commitment https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 12 cognitive semantics the area of study concerned with investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system and the semantic structure encoded by language https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 13 concept the fundamental unit of knowledge central to categorization and conceptualization https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 14 context the totality of the semiotic phenomena associated with a linguistic sequence http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 15 converses expressions which express a relationship between two things such that one of the expressions conveys the relationship in one order and the other expression conveys the relationship in the opposite order http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 16 domain a conceptual entity posited in Cognitive Grammar constituting a coherent knowledge structure possessing, in principle, any level of complexity or organization https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 17 gradable antonyms expressions are gradable antonyms if they are at opposite ends of a continuous scale of values (a scale which can vary according to the context of use) http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 18 hyponymy the relationship between expressions such that the meaning of one expression is included in the meaning of the other http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 19 lexicography branch of applied linguistics that is concerned with the compiling, editing, and writing of dictionaries http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 20 lexicology  the linguistic study of the lexicon http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 21 linguistic unit a general term for the fundamental unit of language employed in cognitive linguistics in place of theory specific terms such as symbolic assembly and construction https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 22 meaning  content of a linguistic unit, defined in terms that are relative to its context and communicational situation http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 23 meronymy  the relationship of a part to a whole: nose is a meronym of face http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 24 morpheme the minimal sign, indecomposable in a given synchronic state http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 25 non-binary antonyms (incompatible sets) expressions in sets of more then two members which are incompatible in talking about the same thing. All the terms in the given set are incompatible and together all the members of the set cover the entire semantic area   http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 26 opposites the relationship of being opposite in meaning http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 27 paradigmatic order order of codified association; a semantic unit acquires its value only in relation to others that can be substituted for it and that form its definitional paradigm http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 28 prototype a relatively abstract mental representation that assembles the key attributes or features that best represent instances of a given category. https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 29 prototype structure relates to the occurrence of repeated attributes across distinct members, or exemplars, of a particular category which gives rise to a prototype https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 30 reference the relationship between a word or expression and the things in the world represented by those words or expressions  http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 31 referent  a specific thing that the word or expression refers to http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 32 relevance activation of a seme; there exist three types of relevance (linguistic, generic or situational), depending on whether the activation is prescribed by the functional system of language, the textual genre, or the practice involved http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 33 role elementary dialectic valence of an actor; each function confers a role to each of the actors participating in that function  http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 34 semantic case a primitive semantic relation between actants; being semantic primitives of method, they are not to be confused with morpho syntactic functions http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 35 semantics study of linguistic meaning http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 36 semantic structure the form that conceptual structure takes for purposes of being encoded and externalized via language https://www.textosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans%20-%20A%20Glossary%20of%20Cognitive%20Linguistics%20-%202007.pdf 37 seme element of a sememe, defined as the extreme of a binary relational function between sememes; the seme is the smallest unit of signification defined by analysis http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 38 sememe  signified of a morpheme http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 39 seme cluster stable grouping of semes, not necessarily lexicalized, or whose lexicalization can vary (a “theme”, when it can be defined semantically, is nothing more than a seme cluster) http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 40 signification   signified of a linguistic unit defined by abstracting context and communicational situation; any given signification is an artefact http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 41 signified content of a linguistic unit http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 42 specific seme element of the semanteme which sets the sememe in opposition to one or more sememes of the taxeme to which it belongs http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html 43 synonymy the relationship between two expressions that have the same sense; synonyms, therefore, are expressions which share a sense; perfect synonyms would share all their senses http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S04/256/semantic_terms.htm 44 syntagmatic order order of the linearization of language, in a spatial and/or temporal dimension; it accounts for positional relations and functional relations http://www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html