1. Abstracts
This work presents a corpus-based approach to the lexical semantic study of the major classes of Mandarin verbs. The distinct morphosyntactic behaviors of verbs provide revealing indications on their distinct lexical properties. As a pilot effort, a number of near-synonym sets which share the same semantic fields were first investigated. In order to account for the observed differences, a newly-developed framework (Huang and Tsai 1997; Liu, to appear) is adopted with the notion of ‘event focus’ and its implication on ‘event-structure attributes’. This research aims to show that a semantically-constrained framework of event-structure attributes is needed to make sense of the crucial distributional facts in lexical differentiation. !"#$%&'() *+,-./01(2 3 #45(678 9:)$; !<$=>
2. Background Introduction and Goal of the Research
2.1 Verbal Semantics
A recent focus of linguistic studies has been on the area of lexical semantics, especially verb meanings. Being the most essential part of the lexicon, verbs provide the key to studying the nature of lexical knowledge as well as sentence processing. Most lexical semantic studies on verbs share a common assumption that the syntactic behavior of a verb, especially its argument expression, is determined by the meaning of the verb (cf. Levin 1993, Pustejovsky 1995, etc.). However, two issues still need to be further explored: 1) What exactly makes up verbal semantics? 2) How exactly can the differences in argument expression be attributed to lexical semantic features? Instead of looking for alternation patterns that are class-based, this study focuses more on corpus-based morpho-syntactic behavior as an indicator of lexical-semantic attributes.
From the perspective of Chinese linguistics, previous studies on the Mandarin verb system have attempted to categorize verbs into classes with respect to general semantic types (e.g. ‘active’ vs. ‘stative’, Chao 1968), argument structure (Her 1990, Tsao 1994), or a hybrid of event types and thematic roles (CKIP 1988). Given the typological and parametric variations between languages, some of the frameworks used for English cannot be readily transferred to Chinese. Liu (1996b) found that purely alternation-based approach may not be adequate in categorizing and
representing Mandarin verbs. A more semantically constrained system is indeed needed for natural language processing purposes. This study thus aims to provide
detailed analyses of finer semantic distinctions to prepare for a complete representation of Mandarin verbal semantics.
2.2 Study of Near-Synonyms
As a response to the need of fine-tuning verbal semantics, Tsai, Huang, and Chen (1996) presents an interesting work on differentiating a pair of near-synonyms - ?@ ‘happy, glad’ andAB ‘happy, joyful’. These two verbs are semantically similar but syntactically distinct in many aspects. By examining the correlation between their syntactic behavior and lexical semantic properties, Tsai et. al. showed that the syntactic contrasts can be systematically explained with two semantic features <+control> and <+ change-of-state>. Similar accounts can also be extended to the semantic distinction of near-synonym pairs in English and French.
As part of a long-term project of lexical semantic studies of Mandarin verbs, the present work extends the frontier to a new semantic field with other sets of
contrastive near-synonyms. It is believed that only a comprehensive corpus-based study of these terms can render significant contrasts that help to differentiate their unique meanings.
The observed distinction among the four verbs is then viewed from a recently proposed framework that takes event structure attributes as the primary defining mechanisms for lexical semantic contrast (Haung and Tsai 1997). According to Huang and Tsai, there are basically four types of event structure attributes: Aspectual Attributes (i.e., generalized semantic properties pertaining to aspectual composition); Inherent Attributes (i.e., event-internal semantic focus); Role Attributes (i.e., salient role types); and Role-Internal Attributes (i.e. nominal characteristics of the roles). It is through the characterization of these four types of attributes that the verbs under study can be best differentiated.
2.3 The Data
The data for the analysis of this paper come from a Mandarin corpus, the Sinica Corpus, which is the largest balanced corpus of both written and spoken
contemporary Mandarin, containing a total of 5 million word, developed by the CKIP group in Academia Sinica, Taiwan. The relevant data were extracted from the corpus by a key-word search with 30 additional words on either side.
3. Outline of Results
Clustering of Semantic Features and Syntactic Patterns: +: lexically specified
C C
C
C
C F1: structure/designC [+design]C [-design]C C Interpretational ContrastC DEFGDHFC IEFGIHFC
C +OrientationC DJKGLJDC *IJKG*LJIC
C F2: spatial boundaryC [-bounded]C [+bounded]C
C C *DMC NOPQC IMRSC
C C *DTUC NVPQC ITUC NWXPQC
C F3: processC [+process]C [-process]C
C C YDZC ?YIZC
C [V\C]^_`abc_bdb^C ef]^_`abc_bdb^gC [-result]
C C DhiGDj klC *IhiG*Ij klC
C C C C
C C C C
C C
C
C
C [W\Cemd`_dbno^gC efmd`_dbno^gC ecmd`_dbno^gC
C C pjqrHFC stjqrHFC
C F2:[detach]C [+detach]C [-detach]C
C +u6 pu6C *tu6
C +ResidenceC pvC *tvC
C Interpretational contrastC wxpyC wxtyC
C F3:[control]C [+control]C [-control]C
C Imperative+agentivityC Azp!C *Azt!C
C Natural phenomenaC *{|}pC {|}tG~tN*pQC C F4: salient roleC ^mbc dbn^bC b^^C C C ^mbC ]^_^bCNXPQC WCd]`^bC C NXOPQC C C C C C C C C C C
C
C
C F 1:control and causeC [+control][+causative]C [-control][-causative]C
C C C *AC
C Inanimate subject *y yC
C Deliberate *yC C
C F2: direction of changeC [+positive]C C
C C *yC C
C C N*QyC NQyC
C F3: aspectC +processC -process (achievement)C
C ¤b^\C ¥CN¦§QC C ef ]m^__gC C
C C C
C
C
C C
C
C
C F1:ownership specified?C [+ownership]C [-ownership]C
C C ¨©ªC *«©ªC
C C *¨¬C «¬C
C F2: aspectC +prcoessC -process (+achievement)C
C ]]^__no^C ®¯Y¨°FC *®¯Y«°FC
C ±daCbdn^²C ®³´¨µC C ®³´«µC C C C C C C C C C C C
C
C C F1:[ownership]C [+ownership]C C C C ¨©ªC ¶JC
C F2: manner vs. activityC ]^C^o^bno^C C manner-focused C
C C *¨¨hC ¶¶hC C C ·¨yN_b Cb^C²nQC C ¸·¶yN_b Cb^CdnbQC C C ¹vº» ¨#¼½¾C C ¸¸¹vº»¶¼½¾C C C C C C C C C C C
C
C C [W\^² nbC C C + result-themeC f]^_`abc_bdb^C C ¿m]^^bdaCb^^Cd_C^mbC ÀÁ ? C f4C À4C NOPQC Â4C NÃPQ C [¥\CÄ]m^CbÅ ^C bÆc_n²^²CÄ]m^C ^c_n²^²CÄ]m^C C C ÀÇÈC *ÂÇÈC C C
C
C C [W\²ÅC d]bC C C +C²ÅC d]bC cC²ÅC d]bC C C
C
C C [W\Cn_bdbd^`_C +Cn_bdbd^`_C cn_bdbd^`_C C f4C sÉ4ÊFC Ë4ÊF C _na^c nbCmbdmbC ÉÌÍÎ cf. Ï/ÐxÎC *ËxÎ *Ñ/Ò/xÎ C [¥\Cn dmbC fn dmbC cn dmbC
C _b]CdÄÄ^mbC ÉÓGÔC ËÕC
3.2 Distinctions in terms of Event-Structure Attributes
Four types of event-structure attributes are proposed as the basis for verbal semantic description and representation (Huang and Tsai 1997):
Aspectual Attributes: attributes pertaining to the composition of the event(s), such as Endpoint(s), Homogeneity, etc.
Inherent Attributes: attributes referring to the semantics of the event itself, such as Control, Change-of-state, etc.
Role Attributes: attributes referring to focussed (though not necessarily obligatory in its predicate argument structure) roles of the event, such as Agent, Theme, Instrument, Manner, Gaol, etc.
Role-Internal Attributes: attributes referring to the internal semantics of a particular focussed role (of the event), such as Factive, Generic, Sentience, Volition,
Affectedness, etc. 3.3 An example: A. Initial Observation on vs. (1) Interpretational Difference: a. Ö×Ø× b. ÖÙØÙ (2) Goal as Direct Object:
a. ÖÚÖÛÜÝÖÞÖßà b. *ØÚ
(3) Typical Manner or Result: áØØâ Tentative Hypothesis:
Ö (ã) +endpoint
Ø (ä) -endpoint (unspecified) B. Further Contrast between / (4) Goal as Direct Object
(5) Directed motion (+path)è Méêë éLìë éíë î Ö 76% 13% 10% ï ã 6% 87% 6% 0% Ø 26% 19% 32% 23% ä 4% 38% 50% 7% (6) V-V: ÖãäãØãðã Distinction between /: +endpoint; +bounded +endpoint
C. Further Contrast between / (7) Interpretational Difference:
a. Øy ñòó
ây (inchoative, stative, +result, -deliberate) äy (completive, active, -result, +deliberate) b. äy ñòó (completive, active, +deliberate) (8) a. $òóôØ/õØy
b. *$òóôä/õäy
Distinction between 1/ 2/: 1 = -endpoint; +motion; +control
2 -endpoint; +state; -control; +result (achievement?) D. Summary:
The distinction among the four verbs, Ö, ã, Ø, ä can be re-defined with the proposed event-structure attributes:
- In terms of Aspectual Attributes, Ø differs from the others (activity events) in that it may focus on the event-endpoint, thus rendering an intransitive-causative use.
- In terms of Inherent Attributes, Ö/ã behave differently from Ø/ä in that Ö/ã are highly directional, while Ø/ä is underspecified in directionality.
while the role of Path-endpoint is not salient in the meaning of Ø/ä. - With regard to Role-internal Attributes, Ö casts a further specification on the
spatial characteristics of the Path-endpoint: it has to be bounded .
(9) Summary of Lexical-Semantic Distinctions among Ö, ã, Ø, ä with Event- Structure Attributes
Attributes
Aspectual - Event-endpoint - Event-endpoint + Event-endpoint - Event-endpoint Internal + Directional + Directional - Directional - Directional Role + Path-endpoint
+ Path-endpoint - Path-endpoint - Path-endpoint Role-Internal
(Path-Endpoint)
+ Bounded
3.4 Other synonym sets
Aspectual Attributes Stative Punctual State Process Role Attribute Locus vs. ! Aspectual Attributes Process" #$%&' ( !Process + Endpoint ())*+,!-./ Role Attributes theme 0
!a) Incremental Theme!12!3
b) Locus vs. Locutum456!. vs. .!456 cf. Theme/ Location Alternation
I sprayed the paint on the wall. I sprayed the wall with paint.
789 Aspectual Attributes 7Punctual*" 7*"7#(%:'7( 8Process;<=>? @8ABCDEE 8FG 9Process 9HG Role Attributes
7Theme but not Incremental Theme7IJK
8Theme but not Incremental Theme8FGIL8MNO 9Theme or Incremental Theme./9/4PQ912 RST Aspectual Attributes: RProcess" R RUV SPunctual StateWSX/YOS#=Z TPunctureT#$%:'[\] Role Attributes
RTheme or Incremental Theme[R[R^_RUV STheme but not Incremental ThemeS`*S^_ TThemeTTa bcdef Aspectual Attributes bProcess" bAg?h cProcess"cAcAJiA# dProcess" d eProcessEEe#gjk fPuncturef#lmn*f#jo. Role Attributes
bThemeIncremental Theme or Goalbpqrbstbuvw cTheme or Goalc"’xy’bucw dThemeGoal or Locusd d]dzd{ eTheme"e[|}n fTheme~fG Aspectual Attributes Process"#(% x" g
Puncture State" G #=ZI ] Role Attributes
Theme or Incremental Theme[ Theme . NP-predicating VP-predicating Aspectual Attributes: [stage] N? ¡¢£¤¥£¦ §¨©ª«¬ ¨®¯° L± * [process] ?²³ ´ §;µ g¶·#¸¹º?»¼ *
Role Internal Attributes: goal [moving] §C½ 1[Temporal target] ¾¿ÀÁÂÃh¿ÄÅ«ÆÇ®ÈqÉÊÆÇËÌ? §ÍÎÏ/mÐ/Ñ /Ò/Ó 2[Patient] §ÔG/U/Õ 3[Manner] §g$ vs. §: / Ö [Spatial event] Ö ×Ø?ÙÚ [Temporal event] Û 1®Ö ÜÝÞÊ?ßà áâ4
Role Attributes: áâNominative--[+theme] [+experiencer] 4Nominative--[-theme] [+experiencer] ãä Aspectual Attributes: ã 1. [+process]åæ®åã çèéêGëdëã ìã ãí ãî ã 2.[+punctual] "ïo[ðñò óã#ôn õö÷øùIúûü|AýþJã ã ãå ä 1. [+process] ä ä 2. [+punctual] ä] ä· /®äã? ¤®ä Y?¿
4. Conclusion
The set of the four Mandarin near-synonyms under study raises several important issues concerning the approach for lexical semantic research:
While some works on English verbal semantics (e.g. Levin 1993, Atkins and Levin While some studies on English verbal semantics (e.g. Levin 1993, Atkins and Levin 1991, Atkins et. al. 1988) conclude that diathesis alternations are most useful in identifying crucial semantic-syntactic interdependencies, such an
approach may not be adequate when applying to Mandarin, given that Mandarin is relatively flexible in argument placing.
Viewed from a language-specific perspective, this study may be taken as part of the pilot efforts in searching for the most suitable and effective framework for the study of the Mandarin verbal system.
Viewed in a more general context, this work may help to illustrate several theoretical and methodological points. First, semantic distinctions may not be easily captured if corpus-based, discourse-triggered syntactic patterns are ignored. Secondly, semantic distinctions may have various event-structure facets, which can be best understood if event focus is taken into consideration and if verbal
meanings are represented in terms of specific categories of attributes. Finally, the clustering of discourse-syntactic patterns with lexical-semantic characteristics proves to be fruitful in differentiating near-synonyms as well as in systematically disentangling the complex interaction between syntax and semantics.
5. Self-Evaluation
Three papers have been completed and as a direct result of the
research:
To appear. Lexical meaning and discourse patterning - the three Mandarin cases of ‘build’. In the 3rd Volume of Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford: CSLI.
1998. When Endpoint Meets Endpoint: A Corpus-based Lexical Semantic Study of Mandarin Verbs of Throwing. Presented at ICAL-7/NACCL-10, Stanford University.
1998. Lexical Information and Beyond: Constructional Inferences
in Semantic Representation, submitted to Pacling 13, National Cheng-Kung University.
6. References
Atkins, B.T. and Levin, B. 1991. Admitting Impediments in.Lexical Acquisition: Exploiting On-Line Resources to Build a Lexicon, ed. by U. Zernik. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Atkins, B.T., J. Kegl, and B. Levin. 1988. Anatomy of a verb entry: from linguistic theory to lexicographic practice. International Journal of Lexicography 1: 84- 126.
Biber, D. 1996. Investigating language use through corpus-based analyses of association
patterns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics Vol. 1(2): 171-197. CKIP group (Chen, Keh-jiann, Li-li Chang, Chu-Ren Huang, and Ching-
Chun Hsieh). 1988. A classification of Chinese verbs for language parsing." Proceedings of 1988 International Conference on Computer Processing of Chinese
and Oriental Language (ICCPCOL), 414-17. Toronto, Canada.
Croft, William, ed. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
---. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of events. In meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization, ed. by S. Tsohatzidis.
London/New York: Routledge. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:547- 619.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The Univ. of Chicago Press.
Givon, T. 1993. English Grammar: a Function-based Introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Her, One Soon. 1990. Grammatical Functions and Verb Subcategorization in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 250-299.
Huang, Chu-ren. and Tsai, Mei-chih. 1997. From Near Synonyms to Event Structure: Corpus-based Studies of Mandarin Verbal Semantics. Paper presented at the Mini-Conference on Lexical Semantics. Graduate Institute of Linguistics. National Chung
Cheng University.
Huang, S. 1995. Emegent Lexical Semantics. Paper presented at the Mini Conference on Lexical semantics. Graduate Institute of Linguistics. National Chung-cheng University.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangrous Things. Chicago: U of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol 1. Stanford: Stanford U Press.
Levin, Beth. 1993. Verb Classes and Alternation. Chicago: U of Chicago Press. Levin, Beth, Grace Song, and B.T.S. Atkins. 1997. Making sense of corpus data: A
case study of verbs of sound, " International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2 (1): 23-64.
Liu, Meichun. To appear. Lexical meaning and discourse patterning - the three Mandarin cases of ‘build’. In the 3rd Volume of Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford: CSLI.
---. 1997. Conceptual basis and categorial structure: a study of Mandarin V-R compounds as a radial category. In Chinese Languages and Linguistics, Vol. IV: 425-51. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
---. 1996a. Conceptual manipulation and semantic distinction: the case of Mandarin postverbal DE complement. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, ed. by Adele Goldberg, 333-46. Stanford: CSLI.
---. 1996b. A Pilot Study on Chinese Verb Classes and Alternations. NSC Project Report (NSC85-2418-H-009-003). Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative
Lexicon. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
---. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41:47-81. Smith, C. S. 1991. The
Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tenny, C. 1992. “The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis”. Lexical Matters, ed. Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 1-27. Stanford: Stanford University.
Teng, Shou-hsin, ed. 1994. Chinese Synonyms Usage Dictionary. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Tsai, Mei-chi, Chu-ren Huang, and Keh-jiann Chen. 1996. You jinyici bianyi biaozhun kan yuyi, qufa zhi hudong. (From near-synonyms to the interaction between syntax and semantics), paper presented at IsCLL-5, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tsai, Mei-chi, Chu-Ren Huang, Keh-jiann Chen, Kathleen Ahrens. 1997. Towards a representation of verbal semantics - an appraoch based on near synonyms. Proceedings of ROCLING X, 34-48, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1994. On verb classification in Chinese. Paper presented in the 6th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL VI).
