Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon

Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics

of lexicon

Elena PaduchevaVINITI RAN, Moscow

[email protected], http://www.lexicograph.ru

Boulder CO, October 3, 2008

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.lexicograph.ru/

http://www.lexicograph.ru/

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


Argument structure

Decomposition


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)


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 =


Argument structure

Thematic components

Decomposition



K2 –

K3 –










Argument structure

Category components

Decomposition



K2 –

K3 –









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


Argument structure

Decomposition

K0 Initial state | before t<MS Y was in a state: Y slept

K1 –

K2 –

K3 –


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


role Thematic class


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]


role Thematic class


W Object Center Theme liquid/substance:

Y s + Gen Periphery Location-Theme

physical entity: with surface

(Z) Instrumental Periphery Instrument physical entity


Y Object Center Theme physical entity: with surface

(Z) Instrumental Periphery Instrument physical entity

W Off Screen Theme liquid/substance:


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 –


K5 Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with Z)



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?

Documents

Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon