Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics
of lexicon
Elena PaduchevaVINITI 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 classesTwo 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
Category
Thematic class
Aspect
VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’
Argument structure
Legend
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure
Decomposition
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure
Argument structure
Variable Morphosynt. realization Rank Semantic
role Thematic class
X Subject Center Agent person
Y Object Center Patient physical entity: with a surface
(Z) N-Instrumental Periphery Instrument physical entity
W –
Off Screen Theme liquid / substance
VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’
X vyter Y (Z-om) = X wiped Y (with Z)
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure
Decomposition
Decomposition
K0 Initial state | before t<MS Y had W on its surface
K1 ipso facto the state of Y was not normal
K2 –
K3 –
K4 Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind
K5 Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with the help of Z)
K6 Causation | К4 was causing К7
K7 Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y
K8 Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y has no W on its surface
K9 Entailment | the state of Y is normal
K10 Implication | there is no W on the surface of Y; ipso facto W does not exist
VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’. X wiped W =
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure
Thematic components
Decomposition
K0 Initial state | before t<MS Y had W on its surface
K1 ipso facto the state of Y was not normal
K2 –
K3 –
K4 Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind
K5 Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with the help of Z)
K6 Causation | К4 was causing К7
K7 Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y
K8 Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y has no W on its surface
K9 Entailment | the state of Y is normal
K10 Implication | there is no W on the surface of Y; ipso facto W does not exist
VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’. X wiped W =
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure
Category components
Decomposition
K0 Initial state | before t<MS Y had W on its surface
K1 ipso facto the state of Y was not normal
K2 –
K3 –
K4 Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind
K5 Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with the help of Z)
K6 Causation | К4 was causing К7
K7 Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y
K8 Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y has no W on its surface
K9 Entailment | the state of Y is normal
K10 Implication | there is no W on the surface of Y; ipso facto W does not exist
VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’. X wiped W =
DB Lexicographer - what it can be used for?
► 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.
From Decomposition to the taxonomy: Category
► 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’
From Decomposition to the taxonomy: Thematic class
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure
Decomposition
K0 Initial state | before t<MS Y was in a state: Y slept
K1 –
K2 –
K3 –
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
K7 Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit; telic
K8 Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y does not sleep
K9 Entailment | –
K10 Implication | –
RAZBUDIT’ 1.1 ‘wake up’. ‘X waked up Y by Z’ =
► 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 STATEhyperonym for be ill - PHYSIOLOGICAL STATE
also: razbudit’ ‘wake up’, vyzdorovet’ ‘to recover <from flu>’
From Decomposition to the taxonomy: Thematic class
► 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’ – HappeningZvonok v dver’ razbudil menja
ringing.NOM in door wake.PAST me.ACC ‘The ringing of the doorbell woke me up.’
Description of meaning shifts
(#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
Action VS Happening
X is a person
X is an event
causation as a process / causation as an event
causation as an event
(#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
Action VS Happening
(#4) X razbil Y ‘broke <unvoluntary>’ [happening with the subject ofresponsibility] =
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’
Happening with the subject of responsibility
(#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’
Action VS Process
Variable Morphosynt. realization Rank Semantic
role Thematic class
X Subject Center Agent person
Y Object Center Location-Theme
container/physical object: has volume
Z N-Instrumental Periphery Medium-Theme mass
Z Subject Center Medium mass
Y Object Center Location-Theme
container/physical object: has volume
K0 Initial state | before t<MS Y did not contain Z/ Z did not occupy the whole volume of Y
K1 –
K2 –
K3 –
K4 Process with subject | at t<MS process with Z was going on: Z moved to Y
K5 Manner of action |
K6 ipso facto
K7 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
K8 Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y contains maximal amount of Z {Y is full of Z}
K9 Entailment | Z occupies the whole volume of Y
K10 Implication |
ZAPOLNIT’ 1.2 ‘fill <the boiler>’: Water filled the boiler
W zapolnil Z ‘W filled Z’ =
Thematic shifts-1The 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]
(#7a) vyteret’ posudu ‘wipe the dishes’ (wipe 1.2) [TREATMENT]
Variable Morphosynt. realization Rank Semantic
role Thematic class
X Subject Center Agent person
W Object Center Theme liquid/substance:
Y s + Gen Periphery Location-Theme
physical entity: with surface
(Z) Instrumental Periphery Instrument physical entity
X Subject Center Agent person
Y Object Center Theme physical entity: with surface
(Z) Instrumental Periphery Instrument physical entity
W Off Screen Theme liquid/substance:
Words Lemmata Data recovery Text files Quit
Argument structure
K0 Initial state | before t<MS W was on the surface of Y
K1 ipso facto state of Y was not normal
K2 –
K3 –
K4 Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind
K5 Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with Z)
K6 Causation | К4 was causing К7
K7 Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y
K8 Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: there is no W on the surface of Y
K9 Entailment | W does not exist
K10 Implication | Y has no W on its surface; the state of Y is normal
VYTERET’ 1.1 ‘wipe (tears)’. X wiped W from Y (with Z) =
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].
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’.
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’.
DecausativizationAlso 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’. (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
(#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 tiredEntailment &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
Decausativisation (2)
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?