Semantic classifications of the verb 0

: Miracleworld | : | : 13-06-2011

Semantic classifications of the verb may be undertaken from different standpoints. Grammatically important is the devision of verbs into the following classes: Actional verbs, which denote actions proper (do, make, go, read, etc.) and statal verbs, which denote state (be, exist, lie, sit, know, etc.) or relations (fit, belong, have, match, cost, etc.). The difference in their categorical meaning affects their morphological paradigm: statal and relational verbs have no passive voice (though some have forms coinciding with the passive voice as in The curtainsand the carpet were matched ). Also statal and relational verbs generally are not used in the continuous and perfect continuous tenses. Their occasional use in these tenses is always exceptional and results in the change of meaning. From the syntactic standpoint verbs may be subdivided into transivite () andintransitive () ones. Without the object the meaning of the transitive verb is incomplete or entirely different. Transitive verbs may be followed: a) by one direct object (monotransitive verbs); Jane is helping her sister. b) by a direct and an indirect objects (ditransitive verbs); Jane gave her sister an apple. c) by a prepositional object (prepositional transitive verbs): Jane looks after her sister. Intransitive verbs do not require any object for the completion of their meaning: The sun is rising. There are many verbs in English that can function as both transitive and intransitive. Tom is writing a letter. (transitive) Tom writes clearly. (intransitive) Who has broken the cup? (transitive) Glass breaks easily. (intransitive) Jane stood near the piano. (intransitive) Jane stood the vase on the piano. (transitive) The division of verbs into terminative and non-terminative depends on the aspectual characteristic in the lexical meaning of the verb which influences the use of aspect forms. Terminative verbs ( ) besides their specific meaning contain the idea that the action must be fulfilled and come to an end, reaching

some point where it has logically to stop. These are such verbs as sit down, come, fall, stop, begin, open, close, shut, die, bring, find, etc. Non-terminative, or durative verbs( ) imply that actions or states expressed by these verbs may go on indefinitely without reaching any logically necessary final point. These are such verbs as carry, run, walk, sleep, stand, sit, live, know, suppose, talk, speak, etc. The end, which is simply an interruption of these actions, may be shown only by means of some adverbial modifier: He slept till nine in the morning. The last subclass comprises verbs that can function as both terminative and non-terminative (verbs of double aspectual meaning). The difference is clear from the context: Can you see well? (non-terminative) I see nothing there. (terminative)

Construction of verb semantic classes Verb semantic classes are then constructed from verbs, modulo exceptions, which undergo a certain number of alternations. From this classification, a set of verb semantic classes is organized. We have, for example, the classes of verbs of putting, which include Put verbs, Funnel Verbs, Verbs of putting in a specified direction, Pour verbs, Coil verbs, etc. Other sets of classes include Verbs of removing, Verbs of Carrying and Sending, Verbs of Throwing, Hold and Keep verbs, Verbs of contact by impact, Image creation verbs, Verbs of creation and transformation, Verbs with predicative complements, Verbs of perception, Verbs of desire, Verbs of communication, Verbs of social interaction, etc. As can be noticed, these classes only partially overlap with the classification adopted in WordNet. This is not surprising since the classification criteria are very different. Let us now look in more depth at a few classes and somewhat evaluate the use of such classes for natural language applications (note that several research projects make an intensive use of B. Levin's classes). Note that, w.r.t. WordNet, the classes obtained via alternations are much less hierarchically structured, which shows that the two approaches are really orthogonal.

There are other aspects which may weaken the practical use of this approach, in spite of its obvious high linguistic interest, from both theoretical and practical viewpoints. The first point is that the semantic definition of some classes is somewhat fuzzy and does not really summarize the semantics of the verbs it contains. An alternative would be to characterize a class by a set of features, shared to various extents by the verbs it is composed of. Next, w.r.t. the semantic characterization of the class, there are some verbs which seem to be really outside the class. Also, as illustrated below, a set of classes (such as movement verbs) does not include all the `natural' classes one may expect (but `completeness' or exhaustiveness has never been claimed to be one of the objectives of this research). This may explain the unexpected presence of some verbs in a class. Finally, distinctions between classes are sometimes hard to make, and this is reinforced by the fact that classes may unexpectedly have several verbs in common. Let us illustrate these observations with respect to two very representative sets of classes: verbs of motion and verbs of transfer of possession (notice that a few other classes of transfer of possession, e.g. deprivation, are in the set of classes of Remove verbs).