1887
Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Cross-linguistic research has brought extensive evidence on how languages differ in their categorization of actions and events, pointing out the differences in the semantic categories they establish, their boundaries and their degree of granularity with respect to the variety of events they refer to. Verbs describing breaking events vary in terms of generality or specificity of the action description (e.g., breaking or snapping a twig) or salience of specific semantic components characterising the event (e.g., being associated with violent destruction) and the same event can be construed differently within the same language (e.g., ). In this article we set out to explore the semantic boundaries of verbs describing breaking events within and between languages. We propose a new methodology combining corpora and a video ontology, using verb pairs generally regarded as translation equivalents in bilingual dictionaries. The study contributes to research on semantic categorization and verbs correspondences between Italian and English.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.22004.cac
2023-01-27
2024-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bouveret, M. and Sweetser, E.
    2009 Multi-Frame Semantics, Metaphoric Extensions and Grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society35(1): 49–59. 10.3765/bls.v35i1.3597
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v35i1.3597 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowerman, M.
    2005 Why can’t you ‘Open’ a Nut or ‘Break’ a Cooked Noodle? Learning Covert Object Categories in Action Word Meanings. InBuilding Object Categories in Developmental Time, L. Gershkoff-Stowe and D. Rakison (eds), 209–243. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, S.
    (2014) From Visual Prototypes of Action to Metaphors Extending the IMAGACT Ontology of Action to Secondary Meanings. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014). Tenth Joint ISO-ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. Reykjavik, Iceland, 26 May 2014. European Language Resources Association. 53–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cadierno, T., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. and Hijazo-Gascón, A.
    2016 Semantic Categorization of Placement Verbs in L1 and L2 Danish and Spanish. Language Learning66(1): 191–223. 10.1111/lang.12153
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12153 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cennamo, M.
    2015 Valency Patterns in Italian. InIntroducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia (Volume 1), A. Malchukov and B. Comrie (eds), 417–482. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110338812‑017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110338812-017 [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A.
    2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  7. Enghels, R.
    2018 Extending the Notion of Near-Synonymy. Languages in Contrast18(1): 1–5. 10.1075/lic.00001.eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00001.eng [Google Scholar]
  8. Fernández-Martínez, N. J. and Faber, P.
    2019 Who Stole what from whom? A Corpus-Based, Cross-Linguistic Study of English and Spanish Verbs of Stealing. Languages in Contrast20(1): 107–140. 10.1075/lic.19002.fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19002.fer [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C.
    1970 The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking. InReadings in English Transformational Grammar, R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds), 120–133. Ginn: Waltham.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuji, S. I., Radetzky, P. and Sweetser, E.
    2013 A Multi-Frame Semantics of Separation Verbs. InLanguage and the Creative Mind, M. Borkent, B. Dancygier and J. Hinnell (eds), 137–153. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gagliardi, G.
    2015 Validazione dell’ontologia dell’azione IMAGACT per lo studio e la diagnosi del Mild Cognitive Impairment. PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Firenze.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gärdenfors, P., Jost, J. and Warglien, M.
    2018 From Actions to Effects: Three Constraints on Event Mappings. Frontiers in Psychology9(1391): 1–13. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01391
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01391 [Google Scholar]
  13. Husson, F. and Josse, J.
    2014 Multiple Correspondence Analysis. InThe Visualization and Verbalization of Data, J. Blasius and M. Greenacre (eds), 164–184. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis Group LLC.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V. and Rychlý, P.
    2013 The TenTen Corpus Family. Paper presented at theSeventh International Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2013), England, 23–26 July 2013. Available athttps://www.sketchengine.eu/wp-content/uploads/The_TenTen_Corpus_2013.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Johnson, M.
    1987The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kemmerer, D.
    2019Concepts in the Brain: The View from Cross-Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190682620.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190682620.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kopecka, A. and Narasimhan, B.
    (eds) 2012Events of Putting and Taking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100 [Google Scholar]
  18. Langacker, R. W.
    1986 Abstract Motion. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, California, USA, 15–17February. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 455–471. 10.3765/bls.v12i0.3317
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.3317 [Google Scholar]
  19. Levin, B.
    1993English Verb Classes and Alternation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Levshina, N.
    2015How to Do Linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2016 Verbs of Letting in Germanic and Romance Languages. Languages in Contrast16(1): 84–117. 10.1075/lic.16.1.04lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.1.04lev [Google Scholar]
  22. McEnery, T. and Xiao, R.
    2007 Chapter 2. Parallel and Comparable Corpora: What is Happening?InIncorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, G. Anderman and M. Rogers (eds), 18–31). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599873‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599873-005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Majid, A., Boster, J. S. and Bowerman, M.
    2008 The Cross-Linguistic Categorization of Everyday Events: A Study of Cutting and Breaking. Cognition109(2): 235–250. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  24. Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Van Staden, M. and Boster, J. S.
    2007 The Semantic Categories of Cutting and Breaking Events: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Cognitive Linguistics18(2): 133–152. 10.1515/COG.2007.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Malt, B. C., Gennari, S. and Imai, M.
    2010 Lexicalization Patterns and the World-to-Words Mapping. InWords and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience, B. C. Malt and P. Wolff (eds), 29–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Matlock, T.
    2004a Fictive Motion as Cognitive Simulation. Memory & Cognition321: 1389–1400. 10.3758/BF03206329
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206329 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2004b The Conceptual Motivation of Fictive Motion. InStudies in Linguistic Motivation, G. Radden and K. Panther (eds), 221–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Matsumoto, Y.
    1996 Subjective Motion in English and Japanese Verbs. Cognitive Linguistics71: 183–226. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.183 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mereu, L. and Piunno, V.
    2019 The Argument Structure of Verbs of Hitting and Breaking in Italian. Lingue e Linguaggio18(1): 143–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Moneglia, M.
    2014 The Semantic Variation of Action Verbs in Multilingual Spontaneous Speech Corpora. InSpoken Corpora and Linguistics Studies, T. Raso and H. Mello (eds), 152–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.61.06mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.61.06mon [Google Scholar]
  31. Moneglia, M., Monachini, M., Calabrese, O., Panunzi, A., Frontini, F., Gagliardi, G. and Russo, I.
    2012 The IMAGACT Cross-Linguistic Ontology of Action. A New Infrastructure for Natural Language Disambiguation. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). Istanbul, Turkey, 21-27 May 2012. European Language Resources Association. 948–955.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Moneglia, M., Panunzi, A. and Gregori, L.
    2018 Action Identification and Local Equivalence of Action Verbs: The Annotation Framework of the IMAGACT Ontology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Workshop 7 –Annotation, Recognition and Evaluation of Actions (AREA). Miyazaki, Japan, 7–12 May 2018. European Language Resources Association. 23–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Panunzi, A., De Felice, I., Gregori, L., Jacoviello, S., Monachini, M., Moneglia, M., Quochi, V. and Russo, I.
    2014 Translating Action Verbs Using a Dictionary of Images: The IMAGACT Ontology. Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus. Bolzano, Italy, 15–19 July 2014. EURAC research. 1163–1170.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pustejovsky, J.
    2017 The Semantics of Lexical Underspecification. Folia Linguistica51(s1000): 323–347. 10.1515/flin‑2017‑1004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-1004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rissman, L., van Putten, S. and Majid, A.
    2022 Evidence for a Shared Instrument Prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science46(5): 13140. 10.1111/cogs.13140
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13140 [Google Scholar]
  36. Slobin, D., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eisenbeiss, S. and Narasimhan, B.
    2011 Putting Things in Places. Developmental Consequences of Linguistic Typology. InEvent Representation in Language and Cognition, J. Bohnemeyer and E. Pederson (eds), 134–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Suchomel, V. and Pomikálek, J.
    2012 Efficient Web Crawling for large Text Corpora. Proceedings of the Seventh Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC7). Lyon, France, 17 April 2012. 39–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Slobin, D. I., Ibarretxe-Antunanõ, I., Kopecka, A. and Majid, A.
    2014 Manners of Human Gait: A Crosslinguistic Event-Naming Study. Cognitive Linguistics25(4): 701–741. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0061
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0061 [Google Scholar]
  39. Talmy, L.
    1996 Fictive Motion in Language and “ception”. InLanguage and Space, P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. F. Garrett (eds), 211–276. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Wettere, N.
    2020 The Copular Subschema [become/devenir + past participle] in English and French: Productivity and Degrees of Passivity. Languages in Contrast21(1): 112–137. 10.1075/lic.19013.van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19013.van [Google Scholar]
  41. Vanelli, L.
    2019 Modelli di frase a confronto. Punti di forza e nodi critici della grammatica valenziale. Italiano LinguaDue21: 364–378.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Viberg, Å.
    2020 Contrasting Semantic Fields Across Languages. InNew Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics: Empirical and Methodological Challenges, R. Enghels, B. Defrancq and M. Jansegers (eds), 265–312. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110682588‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110682588-009 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.22004.cac
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.22004.cac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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