1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Languages in Contrast
  4. Volume 26, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Figurative polysemy, in which a word’s original meaning is extended into domains for which it did not originally apply, is a pervasive property of human language. Previous research using cross-linguistic (English/Spanish) data has shown that an important set of similarities and differences in patterns of figurative verb polysemy between counterpart verbs in two languages can be explained by detailed analysis of the event structures of each verb (McNally and Spalek, 2022). Here we treat a complementary case involving counterpart verbs in two languages which share the same basic event structures but differ in details of conceptual (or ‘root’) content, most importantly in the semantic restrictions on their participants. We show how, in this sort of case, the verbs will describe the same types of situations and be amenable to similar figurative extensions as long as their respective semantic restrictions can be met, but not otherwise. Teasing apart contrasts due to variation in event structural vs. conceptual content can shed light both on debates about the relation between root and grammatical content, as well as on the challenges of establishing lexical equivalences for verbs, be it for purposes of translation or for cross-linguistic comparison and the creation of lexical resources.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00059.spa
2025-09-15
2026-05-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lic.00059.spa
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lic.00059.spa.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00059.spa&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Schäfer, F.
    2006 The Properties of Anti-Causatives Crosslinguistically. InPhases of Interpretation, M. Frascarelli (ed.), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197723.4.187
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.4.187 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ausensi, J.
    2021 The Contribution of Roots: The Division of Labor Between Grammar and the Lexicon in Meaning Composition. PhD thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 2024 The Division of Labor Between Grammar and the Lexicon: An Exploration of the Syntax and Semantics of Verbal Roots. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beavers, J. and Koontz-Garboden, A.
    2020 The Roots of Verbal Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855781.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Borer, H.
    2003 Exo-Skeletal vs. Endo-Skeletal Explanations. InThe Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, J. Moore and M. Polinsky (eds), 31–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2005 Structuring Sense: Volume 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowdle, B. F. and Gentner, D.
    2005 The Career of Metaphor. Psychological Review112(1): 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carston, R.
    2019 Ad hoc Concepts, Polysemy and the Lexicon. InRelevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, K. Scott, B. Clark and R. Carston (eds), 150–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.014 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2021 Polysemy: Pragmatics and Sense Conventions. Mind and Language36(1): 108–133. 10.1111/mila.12329
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12329 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chesterman, A.
    1998 Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.47
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.47 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cornish, F.
    2002 ‘Downstream’ Effects on the Predicate in a Functional Grammar Clause Derivation. Journal of Linguistics38(2): 247–278. 10.1017/S0022226702001433
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226702001433 [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, M.
    2008 The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Available athttps://english-corpora.org/coca/ [last accessed27 June 2024].
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2016 Corpus del Español: Wed/Dialects. Available atwww.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/ [last accessed27 June 2024].
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Devos, F., Defrancq, B. and Noël, D.
    1996 Contrastive Verb Valency and Conceptual Structures in the Verbal Lexicon. Language Sciences18(1): 319–338. 10.1016/0388‑0001(96)00023‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(96)00023-X [Google Scholar]
  15. Dowty, D. R.
    1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ebeling, S. O.
    2015 Loving and Hating in English and Portuguese: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study. Oslo Studies in Language7(1): 439–456.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Embick, D.
    2009 Roots, States, Stative Passives. Handout from a Paper presented atthe Roots Workshop, University of Stuttgart, 11 June 2009.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, C. and Atkins, B. T. S.
    2000 Describing Polysemy. The Case of ‘Crawl’. InPolysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, Y. Ravin and C. Leacock (eds), 91–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198238423.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238423.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gentner, D.
    1981 Some Interesting Differences between Nouns and Verbs. Cognition and Brain Theory4(2): 161–178.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A.
    1994 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hardie, A.
    2012 CQPweb — Combining Power, Flexibility and Usability in a Corpus Analysis Tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics17(3): 380–409. 10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har [Google Scholar]
  22. Izquierdo, M., Hofland, K. and Reigem, Ø.
    2008 The ACTRES Parallel Corpus: An English-Spanish Translation Corpus. Corpora3(1): 31–41. 10.3366/E1749503208000051
     https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000051 [Google Scholar]
  23. Key, M. R. and Comrie, B.
    (eds) 2015 The Intercontinental Dictionary Series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://ids.clld.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kudrnáčová, N.
    2021 Contrastive Semantics of Human Locomotion Verbs: English Walk vs. Czech Jít and Kráčet. InCorpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication, W. L. Lu, N. Kudrnáčová and L. A. Janda (eds), 53–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.119.04kud
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.119.04kud [Google Scholar]
  25. Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M.
    1991 Wiping the Slate Clean: A Lexical Semantic Exploration. Cognition41(1–3): 123–151. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90034‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90034-2 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2013 Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Result Complementarity. InStudies in the Composition and Decomposition of Event Predicates, B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke and R. Marín (eds), 49–70. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑5983‑1_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  27. List, J.-M., Forkel, R., Greenhill, S. J., Rzymski, C., Englisch, J. and Gray, R. D.
    2022 Lexibank, a Public Repository of Standardized Wordlists with Computed Phonological and Lexical Features. Scientific Data91: Article number 316. 10.1038/s41597‑022‑01432‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01432-0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mateu, J. and Acedo-Matellán, V.
    2012 The Manner/Result Complementarity Revisited: A Syntactic Approach. InThe End of Argument Structure, M. C. Cuervo and Y. Roberge (eds), 209–228. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. McNally, L. and Spalek, A. A.
    2022 Grammatically Relevant Aspects of Meaning and Verbal Polysemy. Linguistics60(6): 1943–1987. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0167
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0167 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ramchand, G. C.
    1997 Aspect and Predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198236511.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236511.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B.
    2008 The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics44(1): 129–167. 10.1017/S0022226707004975
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004975 [Google Scholar]
  33. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española 2023 Banco de datos (CREA Anotado) [en línea]. Corpus de referencia del español actual. Available athttps://www.rae.es/crea-anotado/ [last accessed27 June 2024].
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española 2024 Diccionario de la lengua española, 23.ª ed. Available athttps://dle.rae.es [last accessed27 June 2024].
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Rodríguez Arrizabalaga, B.
    2003 Sobre verbos de cambio ingleses y españoles: las clases de ‘breaking’ y ‘cutting’ frente a las de ‘romper’ y ‘cortar’. InGramática de construcciones. Contrastes entre el inglés y el español, M. Martínez Vázquez (ed.), 91–140. Huelva: Universidad de Huelva.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Sanjurjo-González, H. and Izquierdo, M.
    2019 A Parallel Corpus for Cross-Linguistic Research. InParallel Corpora for Contrastive and Translation Studies: New Resources and Applications, I. Doval and M. T. Sánchez Nieto (eds), 215–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.90.13san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.90.13san [Google Scholar]
  37. Siewierska, A.
    1991 Functional Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Spalek, A. A.
    2013 Calculating Scales from Change of State Verbs and their Themes. InProceedings of the 21st Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2014 Verb Meaning and Combinatory Semantics: A Corpus-Based Study of Spanish Change of State Verbs. PhD thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Spathas, G. and Michelioudakis, D.
    2021 States in the Decomposition of Verbal Predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory39(4): 1253–1306. 10.1007/s11049‑020‑09496‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09496-6 [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, B., Roberts, S. G. and Lupyan, G.
    2020 Cultural Influences on Word Meanings Revealed through Large-Scale Semantic Alignment. Nature Human Behavior41: 1029–1038. 10.1038/s41562‑020‑0924‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0924-8 [Google Scholar]
  42. Yu, J., Ausensi, J. and Smith, R. W.
    2023 States and Changes-of-State in the Semantics of Result Roots. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory41(4): 1589–1628. 10.1007/s11049‑023‑09570‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09570-9 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00059.spa
Loading
The anatomy of a verb
Languages in Contrast 26, 85 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00059.spa
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00059.spa
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00059.spa
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): English/Spanish; event structure; figurative polysemy; root content; verb meaning

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error