1 / 37

Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon

Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon. Elena Paducheva VINITI RAN, Moscow elena708@gmail.com , http:// www.lexicograph.ru. Boulder CO, October 3, 2008. Outline. Decompositional semantic representation as a base of the verb taxonomy

ismet
Download Presentation

Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon Elena Paducheva VINITI RAN, Moscow elena708@gmail.com, http://www.lexicograph.ru BoulderCO, October 3, 2008

  2. Outline • Decompositional semantic representationas 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

  3. 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

  4. Semantics of lexicon & Grammar • Fillmore 1977, Wierzbicka 1980, Lakoff 1977 • Apresjan 1974, Melchuk 1974: lexicographic definitions = decompositionalsemantic 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)

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Lexical entry Main domains of the entry: • Legend • Category • Thematic class • Aspect • Argument structure • Decomposition

  10. Data recovery Words Lemmata Text files Quit Argument structure VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’ Legend Category Thematic class Aspect

  11. Data recovery Words Lemmata Text files Quit Decomposition Argument structure

  12. Data recovery Words Lemmata Text files Quit Argument structure VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’ X vyter Y (Z-om) = X wiped Y (with Z) Argument structure

  13. Data recovery Words Lemmata Text files Quit Decomposition Decomposition VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’.X wiped W= Argument structure

  14. Data recovery Words Lemmata Text files Quit Decomposition Thematic components VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’.X wiped W= Argument structure

  15. Data recovery Words Lemmata Text files Quit Decomposition Category components VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’.X wiped W= Argument structure

  16. DB Lexicographer - what it can be used for?

  17. 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’‘wipe’, razrezat’ ‘cut <the apple>’, vystirat’ ‘wash’, postroit’ ‘build’, pokrasit’ ‘paint <the roof>’, svarit’ ‘boil <the egg>’, vykopat’ ‘dig out’, etc.

  18. 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’

  19. Data recovery Words Lemmata Text files Quit Decomposition RAZBUDIT’ 1.1 ‘wake up’. ‘X waked up Y by Z’ = Argument structure

  20. 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 <from flu>’

  21. 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 grubym pinkom Ivan.NOM wake.PAST me.ACC rude kick.INS ‘Ivan woke me up with a rude kick’. b. razbudil ‘woke’ – Happening Zvonok v dver’ razbudil menja ringing.NOM in door wake.PAST me.ACC ‘The ringing of the doorbell woke me up.’

  22. X is a person causation as a process / causation as an event X is an event causation as an event Action VS Happening (#3a) X razbudil Y ‘X woke Y’ [Action : ordinary] = K1. Initial state | before t<MS Y was in a state:Y slept K4. Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind K5. Manner of action | X acted upon Y: applying Z K6. Causation |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<MS Y was in a state: Y slept K4. Causer | at t<MS X took place K5. 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

  23. Action VS Happening (#3a) X razbudil Y ‘X woke Y’ [Action : ordinary] = K1. Initial state | before t<MS Y was in a state:Y slept K4. Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind K5. Manner of action | X acted upon Y: applying Z K6. Causation |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<MS Y was in a state: Y slept K4. Causer | at t<MS X took place K5. 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

  24. Happening with the subject of responsibility (#4) X razbil Y ‘broke <unvoluntary>’ [happening with the subject of responsibility] = K0. Initial state | before t < MS Y was in a state: Y was intact; Y functioned normally 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’

  25. 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’ (#5b) Z zapolnil Y ‘Z filled Y’ [Process] Voda zapolnila bak ‘Water filled the boiler’

  26. ZAPOLNIT’ 1.2 ‘fill <the boiler>’: Water filled the boiler W zapolnil Z ‘W filled Z’ =

  27. 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].

  28. (#7b) vyteret’sljozy ‘wipe tears’ (wipe 1.1) [REMOVAL; ANNIHILATION] (#7a) vyteret’ posudu ‘wipe the dishes’ (wipe 1.2) [TREATMENT]

  29. Data recovery Words Lemmata Text files Quit VYTERET’ 1.1 ‘wipe (tears)’. X wiped W from Y (with Z) = Argument structure

  30. 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 bullet pierced a hole in the cap’ [CREATION].

  31. 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 won’ – John vyigryvaet ‘most probably, John will win’.

  32. 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 <the stone>’ [Momentary verb]: Causation of movement by an initial impulse: the activity of the Agent gives rise to a process that takes place when the activity is already behind. See also vzorvat’ ‘explode’, otravit’ ‘poison’, ubit’ ‘kill’.

  33. Decausativization Also causative alternation (Levin, Rappaport Hovav 1995) (15a) Vanja razbil okno. VanjaNOM breakPAST windowACC ‘Vanja broke the window’ (15b) Oknorazbilos’. windowNOM break.SJA.PAST ‘The window broke’ (16a)John zakryl dver’. (16b) Dver* zakrylas*. ‘John closed the door.’ ‘The door closed’. (17a)On zaper dver’ na zasov. (17b) *Dver’ zaperlas’ na zasov. ‘He bolted the door.’ doorNOM bolt.SJA.PAST

  34. 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| this caused Effect| new state of X came about & holds at the MS: Х is tired 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| this caused New state| new state of X came about & holds at the MS: Х is tired Implication| Causer is not relevant

  35. References • Апресян 2006 – Ю.Д.Апресян. Фундаментальная классификация предикатов. // Отв.ред. Ю.Д.Апресян. Языковая картина мира и системная лексикография. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2006, 75-109. • Atkins, Kegl, Levin 1988–Atkins B. T., Kegl J., Levin B.Anatomy of a Verb Entry: from Linguistic Theory to Lexicographic Practice // International Journal of Lexicography. Vol. 1. No. 2. 1988. P. 84–126. • Fillmore 1977 – Fillmore Ch. J. The case for case reopened // Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8. N. Y. etc., 1977. P. 59–81. • Haspelmath 1993 – Haspelmath M. More on typology of the inchoative / causative alternations // B. Comrie, M. Polinsky (eds). Causation and Transitivity. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. • Levin, Rappaport 1995 – Levin B., Rappaport H. M. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995. • Paducheva 2001 …………………………………………. • Paducheva 2003 –Paducheva E. Is there an "anticausative" component in the semantics of decausatives? Journal of Slavic Linguistics, v. 11, N 1, 2003, 173–198. • Какую-нибудь вашу книгу, Елена Викторовна?

More Related