1. Verb taxonomy and decompositional semantics of lexicon Elena Paducheva VINITI RAN, Moscow elena708@gmail.comelena708@gmail.com, http://www.lexicograph.ru http://www.lexicograph.ru Boulder CO, October 3, 2008

2. 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

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

5. 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)

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

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

12. WordsLemmata Data recovery Text filesQuit Category Thematic class Aspect VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’ Argument structure Legend

13. WordsLemmata Data recovery Text filesQuit Argument structure Decomposition

14. WordsLemmata Data recovery Text filesQuit Argument structure Variable Morphosynt. realization Rank Semantic role Thematic class XSubjectCenterAgentperson YObjectCenterPatient physical entity: with a surface (Z)N-InstrumentalPeripheryInstrumentphysical entity W – Off ScreenThemeliquid / substance VYTERET’ 1.2 ‘wipe dry (the dishes, one’s hands)’ X vyter Y (Z-om) = X wiped Y (with Z)

15. WordsLemmata Data recovery Text filesQuit Argument structure Decomposition K0Initial state | before t<MS Y had W on its surface K1ipso facto the state of Y was not normal K2– K3– K4Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind K5Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with the help of Z) K6Causation | К4 was causing К7 K7Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y K8Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y has no W on its surface K9Entailment | the state of Y is normal K10Implication | 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 =

16. WordsLemmata Data recovery Text filesQuit Argument structure Thematic components Decomposition K0Initial state | before t<MS Y had W on its surface K1ipso facto the state of Y was not normal K2– K3– K4Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind K5Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with the help of Z) K6Causation | К4 was causing К7 K7Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y K8Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y has no W on its surface K9Entailment | the state of Y is normal K10Implication | 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 =

17. WordsLemmata Data recovery Text filesQuit Argument structure Category components Decomposition K0Initial state | before t<MS Y had W on its surface K1ipso facto the state of Y was not normal K2– K3– K4Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind K5Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with the help of Z) K6Causation | К4 was causing К7 K7Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y K8Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y has no W on its surface K9Entailment | the state of Y is normal K10Implication | 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 =

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

19. ► 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 ’, vystirat’ ‘wash’, postroit’ ‘build’, pokrasit’ ‘paint ’, svarit’ ‘boil ’, vykopat’ ‘dig out’, etc. From Decomposition to the taxonomy: Category

20. ► 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

21. WordsLemmata Data recovery Text filesQuit Argument structure Decomposition K0Initial state | before t<MS Y was in a state: Y slept K1– K2– K3– K4Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind K5Manner of action | X acted upon Y: applying Z K6Causation | К4 was causing К7 / К4 caused К7 K7Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit; telic K8Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y does not sleep K9Entailment | – K10Implication | – RAZBUDIT’ 1.1 ‘wake up’. ‘X waked up Y by Z’ =

22. ► 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 Decomposition to the taxonomy: Thematic class

23. ► meaning shifts can be presented as operations on Decompositions. (3) razbudit’ 1 VS razbudit’ 2: а. razbudil ‘woke’ – Action Ivan razbudilmenja grubympinkom Ivan.NOMwake.PASTme.ACCrudekick.INS ‘Ivan woke me up with a rude kick’. b. razbudil ‘woke’ – Happening Zvonokvdver’razbudilmenja ringing.NOMindoorwake.PASTme.ACC ‘The ringing of the doorbell woke me up.’ Description of meaning shifts

24. (#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

25. (#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

26. (#4) X razbil Y ‘broke ’ [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’ Happening with the subject of responsibility

27. (#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 XSubjectCenterAgentperson YObjectCenter Location- Theme container/physical object: has volume ZN-InstrumentalPeriphery Medium- Theme mass ZSubjectCenterMediummass YObjectCenter Location- Theme container/physical object: has volume

28. K0Initial state | before t<MS Y did not contain Z/ Z did not occupy the whole volume of Y K1– K2– K3– K4Process with subject | at t<MS process with Z was going on: Z moved to Y K5Manner of action | K6ipso facto K7Process 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 K8Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: Y contains maximal amount of Z {Y is full of Z} K9Entailment | Z occupies the whole volume of Y K10Implication | ZAPOLNIT’ 1.2 ‘fill ’: Water filled the boiler W zapolnil Z ‘W filled Z’ =

29. 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 ].

30. (#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 XSubjectCenterAgentperson WObjectCenterThemeliquid/substance: Ys + GenPeriphery Location- Theme physical entity: with surface (Z)InstrumentalPeripheryInstrumentphysical entity XSubjectCenterAgentperson YObjectCenterTheme physical entity: with surface (Z)InstrumentalPeripheryInstrumentphysical entity W Off Screen Themeliquid/substance:

31. WordsLemmata Data recovery Text filesQuit Argument structure K0Initial state | before t<MS W was on the surface of Y K1ipso facto state of Y was not normal K2– K3– K4Activity | at t<MS X acted with the Goal in mind K5Manner of action | X acted upon Y and ipso facto upon W (: with Z) K6Causation | К4 was causing К7 K7Process in Object | simultaneous with activity; has limit: W was being removed from the surface of Y K8Result | new state of Y came about & holds at the MS: there is no W on the surface of Y K9Entailment | W does not exist K10Implication | 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) =

32. 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 ].

33. 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’.

34. 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 ’ [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’.

35. 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.’doorNOMbolt.SJA.PAST

36. (#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 Decausativisation (2)

37. 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?