john r. taylor
"The studies reported in this special issue exemplify two approaches to semantic typology and to the study of word meaning more generally...It is encouraging that these very different approaches partition the verbs of material seperation in roughly compatible ways...Attention is drawn to the fact that in general the cut and break verbs seem not to display much taxonomic depth, a finding which is in stark contrast to the often elaborate taxonomies exhibited by nominal concepts."
"MacLaury used the follwoing data elicitation procedures:
i. naming...
ii. focal reference...
iii.mapping...
These procedures deliver different kinds of data:
i. elicits the basic color terms of the langauge
ii. elicits the prototypical exemplar of each color term
iii. elicits the extensional range of each color term."
onomasiological: "(What do you call this?")
semasiological: ("What can this word refer to?")
'Appeal to mapping data also makes it possible to identify various kinds of semantic relation between words, such as taxonomic inclusion, synonymy, overlap (or partial synonymy), and contrast."
"The papers in this issue suggest that C&B verbs do not, in general, display any great degree of taxonomic depth, or indeed, in some cases, any kind of taxonomic structure at all."
Showing posts with label cutting and breaking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cutting and breaking. Show all posts
Sunday, May 24, 2009
'He cut-break the rope': encoding and categorizing cutting and breaking events in mandarin
Jidong Chen
"Mandarin categorizes cutting and breaking events on the basis of fine semantic distinctions in the causal action and the caused result."
"3 semantically different types of predicates can be identified: verbs denoting the C&B action subevent, verbs encoding the C&B result subevent, and resultative verb compounds (RVC) that encode both the action and the result subevents."
qie1-duan4
cut.eith.single.blade-be.broken
"The 1st verb (V1) of the RVC, qie1, encodes only the sub-event of the cutting action while the second verb (V@), duan4, encodes the state change of being broken that results from the cutting action."
"I show that Mandarin supports the proposed universal distinction between C&B verbs . . ., but Mandarin C&B verbs differ crucially from the English cut and break in their semantics and argument structure, and the two-way distinction of C&B verbs should be broadened to include a third type of C&B verb, the RVC."
"C&B RVC verbs are semantically compositional. As a whole, they entail a state change, which is indefeasible..."
"...the verb expressing the causal act always precedes the verb expressing the state change . . . no NP can intervene between the constituent verbs..." ungrammatical: qie1 (rope) duan4
"So the state change that is entailed by a monomorphemic verb like cut or break in ENglish is defeasible for Mandarin C&B verbs, as in (5): I qie1 the rope, but rope not duan4 (canceling the action)
"Mandarin C&B verbs encode the causal sub-event and leave lexicalization of the resulting event to an additional verb."
"In contrast, ENglish monomorphemic C&B verbs lexicalize--hence, entail--the resulting event."
"Both English C&B verbs and Mandarin C&B RVCs are telic. But the former are compatible with the progressive aspect, the use of which switches the focus to the process leading up to the state change. In contrast, Mandarin C&B RVCs are incompatible with progressive aspect: they focus only on the endpoint of the event (Tai 1984) and they present the event as a non-decomposable whole (Li and SHirai 2000; Smith 1997)."
"Correspondence analysis revealed 5 distinct clusters of C&B causal events and the Mandarin verns used to describe them:
1. Cutting with scissor(-like) (2-bladed) instrument (e.g. nail clippers, pliers)...thsi distinction is not universal...
2. Cutting with single-blade(-like) instrument...
3. Breaking with hammer(-like) instrument...
4. Pulling on flexible 2-D object (e.g. cloth, paper) with hands or a hand(-like) instrument...'tear, rip'.
5. Bending or pulling on a linear (usually rigid) object (e.g. stick, carrot) with hands or a handlike instrument."
Mandarin C&B action verbs can be distinguished by the instrument and the manner.
"Mandarin does not have an overarching generic verb like cut that can be used across events like slicing, hacking, chopping, trimming, and sawing. Rather, a specific C&B verb must be selected on the basis of the manner or instrumet involved."
'These result verbs can be seen to differentiate C&B events along the following semantic distinctions:
-feature os the affected object (linear objects vs. others).
state or degree of being broken (e.g. sui4 'be in pieces' vs. po4 'be broken')
direction of seperation: cross wise vs. in some other direction (e.g., duan4 'be broken (of long objects broken crosswise').
7b apple qie1 le
The apple cut
"Sentences like 7b resemble the inchoative construction superficially, since the affected object appears in the subject position and the cause is left unexpressed. But such sentences are not real inchoatives."
"Result verbs resemble English breka verbs to some degree: both specify a state or state change but leave the causing subevent open; both can appear in the inchoative construction. But Mandarin result verbs differ crucially from English break verbs in that they cannot be directly used as causatives."
"Mandarin categorizes cutting and breaking events on the basis of fine semantic distinctions in the causal action and the caused result."
"3 semantically different types of predicates can be identified: verbs denoting the C&B action subevent, verbs encoding the C&B result subevent, and resultative verb compounds (RVC) that encode both the action and the result subevents."
qie1-duan4
cut.eith.single.blade-be.broken
"The 1st verb (V1) of the RVC, qie1, encodes only the sub-event of the cutting action while the second verb (V@), duan4, encodes the state change of being broken that results from the cutting action."
"I show that Mandarin supports the proposed universal distinction between C&B verbs . . ., but Mandarin C&B verbs differ crucially from the English cut and break in their semantics and argument structure, and the two-way distinction of C&B verbs should be broadened to include a third type of C&B verb, the RVC."
"C&B RVC verbs are semantically compositional. As a whole, they entail a state change, which is indefeasible..."
"...the verb expressing the causal act always precedes the verb expressing the state change . . . no NP can intervene between the constituent verbs..." ungrammatical: qie1 (rope) duan4
"So the state change that is entailed by a monomorphemic verb like cut or break in ENglish is defeasible for Mandarin C&B verbs, as in (5): I qie1 the rope, but rope not duan4 (canceling the action)
"Mandarin C&B verbs encode the causal sub-event and leave lexicalization of the resulting event to an additional verb."
"In contrast, ENglish monomorphemic C&B verbs lexicalize--hence, entail--the resulting event."
"Both English C&B verbs and Mandarin C&B RVCs are telic. But the former are compatible with the progressive aspect, the use of which switches the focus to the process leading up to the state change. In contrast, Mandarin C&B RVCs are incompatible with progressive aspect: they focus only on the endpoint of the event (Tai 1984) and they present the event as a non-decomposable whole (Li and SHirai 2000; Smith 1997)."
"Correspondence analysis revealed 5 distinct clusters of C&B causal events and the Mandarin verns used to describe them:
1. Cutting with scissor(-like) (2-bladed) instrument (e.g. nail clippers, pliers)...thsi distinction is not universal...
2. Cutting with single-blade(-like) instrument...
3. Breaking with hammer(-like) instrument...
4. Pulling on flexible 2-D object (e.g. cloth, paper) with hands or a hand(-like) instrument...'tear, rip'.
5. Bending or pulling on a linear (usually rigid) object (e.g. stick, carrot) with hands or a handlike instrument."
Mandarin C&B action verbs can be distinguished by the instrument and the manner.
"Mandarin does not have an overarching generic verb like cut that can be used across events like slicing, hacking, chopping, trimming, and sawing. Rather, a specific C&B verb must be selected on the basis of the manner or instrumet involved."
'These result verbs can be seen to differentiate C&B events along the following semantic distinctions:
-feature os the affected object (linear objects vs. others).
state or degree of being broken (e.g. sui4 'be in pieces' vs. po4 'be broken')
direction of seperation: cross wise vs. in some other direction (e.g., duan4 'be broken (of long objects broken crosswise').
7b apple qie1 le
The apple cut
"Sentences like 7b resemble the inchoative construction superficially, since the affected object appears in the subject position and the cause is left unexpressed. But such sentences are not real inchoatives."
"Result verbs resemble English breka verbs to some degree: both specify a state or state change but leave the causing subevent open; both can appear in the inchoative construction. But Mandarin result verbs differ crucially from English break verbs in that they cannot be directly used as causatives."
The Semantic Categories of cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective
Asifa Majid, Melissa Bowerman, Miriam Van Staden and James S. Boster
"we show that although there is crosslinguistic variation in the number of distinctions made and in the placement of category boundaries, these differences take place within a strongly constructed semantic space."
2 views of "the categories associated with everyday words": they "are largley universal. This is because, by hypothesis, they originate in nonlinguistic cognition. . . acquiring basic vocabulary is a process of mapping words to concepts that have already been established on a nonlinguistic basis. The other view: "lexical categories do not reflect shared nonlinguistic cognition directly, but are to some extent linguistic conventions that are free to vary . . ."learning words, even for seemingly universal human experiences and activities, often involves working out language-specific principles of categorization."
"actions of C&B have been central to hominid cognition and culture for more than two million years . . ., which might plead for a degree of universality in the conceptualization of such events."
"On the other hand, preliminary crosslinguistic work ... shows that C&B verbs have intriguingly different extension patterns in different languages."
"...the necessary set of categories may not be obvious to first langauge learners purely on the basis of nonlinguistic experience, but must be learned through exposure to the input language. . . .Children make many errors in their spontaneous speech in referring to events of C&B..."
"There are, then, arguments both for and against the hypothesis that core categories of C&B events are cognitively obvious and universally shared."
"Our central question is how similar the semantic categories of C&B events are across languages."
"The extremes of Dimension 1 are distinguished in all the languages; that is, the events represented to the far left are systematically described with different verbs than those represented to the afr right. Clips at intermediate positions along the dimensiona re reated in different ways by different languages."
"chopping off branch with axe" and "breaking stick with karate chop" are distinguished in English "The common denominator of this categorixzation is the use of a blade (-like) instrument to effect the seperation, regardless of whether it is applied with precise placement or ballistic swing." But in "German: chopping events were routinely classed with events positioned toward the right end of the dimension . . . The common denomiator defining this category is the use of a sharp blow, whether by a bladed implement or a blunt one."
In Sranan, and English-based Carribbean Creole, "Sranan cares more about the nature of teh seperation than about the instrument."
"Events can be distinguished on the basis of how predicatable the location of seperation is in an object (Dimension 1), tearing events are very often honored with a verb of their own (Diemsnion 2), and snapping events are likely to be distinguished from smashing events (DImension 3.
Of course, non eof the langauges categorized C&B events in exactly the same way."
"we show that although there is crosslinguistic variation in the number of distinctions made and in the placement of category boundaries, these differences take place within a strongly constructed semantic space."
2 views of "the categories associated with everyday words": they "are largley universal. This is because, by hypothesis, they originate in nonlinguistic cognition. . . acquiring basic vocabulary is a process of mapping words to concepts that have already been established on a nonlinguistic basis. The other view: "lexical categories do not reflect shared nonlinguistic cognition directly, but are to some extent linguistic conventions that are free to vary . . ."learning words, even for seemingly universal human experiences and activities, often involves working out language-specific principles of categorization."
"actions of C&B have been central to hominid cognition and culture for more than two million years . . ., which might plead for a degree of universality in the conceptualization of such events."
"On the other hand, preliminary crosslinguistic work ... shows that C&B verbs have intriguingly different extension patterns in different languages."
"...the necessary set of categories may not be obvious to first langauge learners purely on the basis of nonlinguistic experience, but must be learned through exposure to the input language. . . .Children make many errors in their spontaneous speech in referring to events of C&B..."
"There are, then, arguments both for and against the hypothesis that core categories of C&B events are cognitively obvious and universally shared."
"Our central question is how similar the semantic categories of C&B events are across languages."
"The extremes of Dimension 1 are distinguished in all the languages; that is, the events represented to the far left are systematically described with different verbs than those represented to the afr right. Clips at intermediate positions along the dimensiona re reated in different ways by different languages."
"chopping off branch with axe" and "breaking stick with karate chop" are distinguished in English "The common denominator of this categorixzation is the use of a blade (-like) instrument to effect the seperation, regardless of whether it is applied with precise placement or ballistic swing." But in "German: chopping events were routinely classed with events positioned toward the right end of the dimension . . . The common denomiator defining this category is the use of a sharp blow, whether by a bladed implement or a blunt one."
In Sranan, and English-based Carribbean Creole, "Sranan cares more about the nature of teh seperation than about the instrument."
"Events can be distinguished on the basis of how predicatable the location of seperation is in an object (Dimension 1), tearing events are very often honored with a verb of their own (Diemsnion 2), and snapping events are likely to be distinguished from smashing events (DImension 3.
Of course, non eof the langauges categorized C&B events in exactly the same way."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
