Technische Universität Chemnitz
Philosophische Fakultät
Sprachwissenschaft Anglistik
SS 2002
HS: Semantic Perspectives
Dozent: Herr Christoph Haase
Event Syntax
Andrea Beyer
Grünauer Str. 65
09432 Großolbersdorf
Immatr.Nr. 19484
13. Sep. 03
Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................4
2. Distinction between Acts and States...................................................5
2.1.
Exceptions and Degrees.....................................................................8
2.2.
Causes...............................................................................................9
2.2.1.
Causative events and their logical form............................................9
2.2.2.
Causative events and entities.........................................................10
2.2.3.
Contrastive analysis of indirect causatives in English and French.14
2.3.
Motion Events.................................................................................15
2.3.1.
Figure, Ground, Path......................................................................16
2.3.2.
Figure, Source/Goal, Location, Path, Conveyance, Manner,
Cause ............................................................................................16
2.3.2.1.
Example: The field ‘walk’.............................................................20
2.3.2.2.
Motion events and sounds..........................................................21
2.3.3.
Verb-framed and satellite-framed Languages: English vs.
French............................................................................................22
3.
Inchoatives and Resultives..............................................................23
4. Conclusion...........................................................................................24
5. Bibliography...........................................................................................26
2
1. Introduction
The field of semantics, generally seen, investigates the relations that exist
between the form or the word, its meaning and the object or the referent.1 In
comparison to other areas of linguistics, like phonology, phonetics, syntax
or morphology, apart from language itself, the non-linguistic world plays a
big role as an important component of semantics.
Traditionally, the semanticians used to investigate the change of word
meaning through time, called etymology. In the early thirties Jost Trier and
later Coseriu started to analyse the structure of vocabulary and of whole
sentences as well.2 This is where the semantics touches the field of syntax.
The word category which is indicated as verb in grammatical research is
designated as event in semantics. “Not all verbs are actions, but when
actions are expressed, they overwhelmingly tend to surface as verbs. [...]
Verbs encode events.”3 They can describe either a condition (to be
disappointed), a process (to get disappointed) or an executed process( to
disappoint).4
Linguists put their emphasis on different criterions for eventhood: while
Givón regards the ‘stability or the change over time’ as essential, Langacker
gives priority to the criterion ‘process’.5 But for both, time plays an important
role in defining an event.
When we talk about event syntax the analysis concerns the allocation of
meaning in events or in verb phrases on a syntactic level.
Each language encodes meaning differently. While the German event
fahren does not express whether someone drives or just goes by car as a
passenger, the French and the English verb include this information. To
express walk or gehen, in French aller à pied is used most often and is
composed of even three words: a verb, a preposition and a noun. The
German reiten includes ‘on horseback’
while the French and English
equivalents do not, they even use different verbs.
1
cf.. Herbst et al. 1991: 173.
cf. ibidem, p.173.
3
Frawley 1992. 141.
4
cf. Frawley 1992: p.141.
Frawley gives the example: to be sad, to get sad, to disappoint.
5
cf. ibidem, p.144.
2
3
French
English
German
conduire
drive
fahren
aller (en voiture)
go (by car), ride
fahren
aller à pied /marcher
walk
gehen
faire du cheval
to go on horsback
reiten
Vocabulary is not translatable one to one because often meaning is
distributed differently over more or less components of a sentence.
Semantics breaks down the meaning of a verb (which is the cognitive
meaning) by decomposing it into its basic elements, e. g. fly= go+ in the air
drive = go+ by any vehicle+ being the conductor (+ on
the ground).
Only if verbs have their original meaning they can be broken down alone.
In the figurative sense the whole verb phrase must be analysed: e.g. to
drive someone crazy. Here drive is used in the sense of make.
The following analysis of event syntax is tied to a relatively temporal
conception, because the meaning of words or events might and does
change. The verb fly for example included the component ANIMAL and
was mainly related to birds before planes existed.
Events can be divided into two main classes: acts and states (chapter 2). In
chapter 2.2. the causes which represent a subclass of act are discussed
and chapter 2.3. contains an analysis of motion events that belong to the
most part to the acts as well. Two minor classes are the inchoatives and the
resultives in chapter 3.
2. Distinction between Acts and States
Events that express a condition are statives (to be disappointed) while the
descriptions of actions or processes are called acts (to disappoint). An act
“is controlled, executed or carried out, with a distinct effect on the
participants [...]” but a state “is more a condition of existence or an attribute
than it is a procedure that is enacted or controlled.”6 The distinction
6
Frawley 1992: 146.
4
between active (or nonstative like Lakoff names them7) and stative events
seems to be easy and clear, but for events like to know or to cost the
following five tests help to classify them.
1. The ‘progressive test’: Tom lifted 40 kilos.
Sarah weighs 50 kilos.8
In the first sentence the action is ‘controlled and carried out’. To weigh does
not describe a procedure but rather a condition. The actor cannot directly
influence it. Not only in the activity or passivity of an event states differ from
acts but in their scope as well: “For statives, the scope of the event is the
event as a totality; for actives, the scope of the event is its components.”9
The action of lifting something is composed of several partial actions:
touching the weight or the dumbbell, raising and finally holding it. To weigh
just encodes a fact, it does not possess a temporal extension (actually it
does but in a different way) like to lift. Because the progressive tenses
function as indicator for time extended actions, only the actives allow it.
“But statives are already extended and continuous by definition. The use of
the progressive with statives is superfluous because states are extended,
but acts are heterogeneously composed and are therefore amenable
to extension.”10
Statives disallow the progressive tense: *Sarah is weighing 50 kilos. / “*Bill
is knowing French.”11, in contrast to the active events: Mary was
snowboarding during her holidays. / Ian is reading the newspaper.
2. The pseudo-cleft test: Events are formulated into the scheme: What X do
be Y.12 Especially the verbs of perception like to see/ to look or to hear/ to
listen are easy to define as act or state by the pseudo-cleft although they
express same perception. Actives allow it, statives do not:
“What I did was look at the picture. but *What I did was see the picture. and
What I did was listen to the music. but *What I did was hear the music.”13
Look and listen are actives, see and hear are statives. Verbs of perception
7
cf. Frawley 1992:p.146.
cf.. example in Frawley 1992: 146. Harry stole $10 . vs. The book cost $10.
9
Frawley 1992: 147.
10
Frawley 1992: 149.
11
Frawley 1992: 149.
12
cf.. Frawley 1992: 150.
13
Frawley 1992: 150.
8
5
as to feel, to taste and to smell do not occur in such pairs. But still, the
pseudo-cleft works with them:
What I did was feel/touch the skin of this snake. but *What I did was feel
bad./*What the skin did was feel try. What I did was taste the new recipe.
But *What the recipe did was taste good. What I did was smell the rare
flower. but *What the flower did was smell sweet. It depends on the
meaning whether the event is active or stative: To smell (in the sense of an
etwas riechen), to taste (in the sense of kosten or probieren) and to feel
(in the sense of tasten) are actives but if they mean sich (an-)fühlen,
schmecken (nach) and riechen/ stinken the event is stative. It can also be
tested whether the verb needs an adverb ( active: I felt carefully the skin of
the snake.) or simply the adjective ( than it is stative: She looked good. He
felt bad. The cowshed smelled awful.)
The pseudo-cleft test does not only work with verbs of perception: What Tim
did was lift the dumbbell./ What they did was paint the wall. But *What
Sarah did was weigh 50 kilos./ *What we did was have a new car.
3. The What happened? test:14 Only actives answer this question: What
happened? -> Tim lifted 40 kilos. Vs. What happened? -> *Sarah weighs 50
kilos.
4. The imperative test:15
Only actives form the imperative: Lift up
50 kilos!/ Watch a film! but *Weigh 50 kilos! *Know French!*
5. The ‘carefully’ and ‘deliberately’ test:16 Carefully and deliberately fit
into
nearly every sentence with an act: Tim carefully/ deliberately lifted 50 kilos.
*Sarah carefully/ deliberately weighs 50 kilos.
Active events cover a certain temporal extension that is why the progressive
test divides them from the states. Another characteristic feature of acts is
that they are executed.17 States function more as attribute which is the
reason why the pseudo-cleft, the question What happened?, the imperative
and the insertion of adverbs, especially carefully and deliberately do not
work with them because these tests underline the action or execution.
14
cf. Frawley 1992: 150.
cf. Frawley 1992: 151.
16
cf. Frawley 1992: 152
17
cf. Frawley 1992: 152
15
6
But not all existing verbs allow all five tests or disallow all of them, so not
every verb can be defined as purely active or as purely stative.
2.1.
Exceptions and Degrees
To write for example meets all the five tests for active verbs, to have, to be,
to exist, to know, to understand, to receive, to seem, to weigh, to cost, to
like, to inherit, to belong, to believe, to hear, to see etc.18 disallow the five
tests: they are states. But what about to relax?19 It allows the progressive: I
am relaxing. And the imperative as well : Relax! But it does not fulfil the
‘What happened?’ test: What happened? *I relaxed . and carefully and
deliberately do not fit with the verb to relax either.
Not every exception is half active and half stative. So they can be
categorized into different degrees. A state has three main features: not
being extendable ( proved by the progressive test), not being unitizable
(what the pseudo-cleft and the What happened? test encode) and the
imperative and insertion of carefully and deliberately do not make sense
(so they are not executable).20 But to lie for example is extendable because
it meets the progressive test and it is not unitizable and not executable:
“The book is lying on the table.
*What the book did was lie on the
table.”21
*What happened? The book lies on the table.
*Lie on the table!
*The book lies carefully/ deliberately on the
table.
The temporal extension refers more to the object (it is its condition) rather
than to the state. These features apply to to sit, to stand, to remain, to rest
as well. These verbs are called semistatives. There are some verbs that
meet the tests apart from the progressive one. Such an active is to remain:
“*I am remaining in the house.
18
cf. Frawley 1992: 153
cf. ibidem
20
cf. Frawley 1992: 154,155
19
7
What I did was remain in the house.
Remain in the house!
I deliberately remained in the house. [...]
*What happened? I remained in the house.” 22
The last test represents a problem as well: To remain only meets one test
for unitization and fails the other one. This fact indeed pleads for the
existence of a continuum within the feature ‘unitizable’. 23
So to remain is less active than to drive and more active than to sit.
+ extendable
- extendable
- executable
+ executable
- unitizable
+unitizable
active
To receive,
to lie,
to remain
to drive
to know ...
to stay ...
Stative
to watch ...
The five tests have shown that not every verb can be classified as stative or
active but that one can be more or less active than another and that they
can more likely be ranged on a scale from stative to active.
2.2. Causes
2.2.1. Causative events and their logical form
Causes, or in the analysis of events also called causatives, are a subclass
of active events and describe “a relation between two events.”24 The
sentence Amy convinced her family to move to Australia. can be expressed
as logical form: X
Y. An if/ then relation exists between X and Y,
between the antecedent and the consequence25 : If Amy convinced her
family, then they really moved to Australia. X
“Rain increases water reserves.”
26
Y does not correspond to
because if there is rain not automatically
21
cf. Frawley 1992: 153
Frawley 1992: 155
23
cf. ibidem
24
Frawley 1992: 158
25
cf. Frawley 1992: 159
26
Frawley 1992. 159
22
8
the water reserves augment. But it can be reformulated as if not/ then not
relation: If it does not rain then the water reserves do not increase. But not
always dependency can be expressed by X
Y or by -X
gives the example: “Smoking causes cancer.”
27
-Y. Frawley
The explanation for the
logical form is to be searched in the “closest possible world”:28 it is obvious
that there is a connection between cancer and smoking, but not everyone
who smokes comes down with cancer. So the formula X
here, just as -X
Y is wrong
-Y does not apply to this relation either, because
people who never smoked in their live can even get lung cancer. In this
sentence the precipitating (Ep) and the resulting event (Er)29 that always
form a unity of cause and effect, influence each other but not in the same
degree as the Ep and the Er do in: Amy convinced (Ep) her family to move
(Er) to Australia. So there is no logical form that would describe Smoking
causes lung cancer. because the form X Y and -X
-Y are limited to
necessity, Y or -Y is the defined as inevitable result ( =Er) of X or –X (=Ep)
and Ep is absolutely necessary to cause Er. Only if the arrow meant
‘possibility’ or ‘likelihood’ then Smoking causes cancer. would be X Y
or -X
-Y. To get along with the existing definition of X
Y the sentence
had to be changed into: Smoking increases the probability of (lung) cancer.
2.2.2. Causative events and entities
Because the semantic definition says that any Ep is necessary and
sufficient for an Er and an Ep results in any Er, (encoded as) ‘not-e & e’
and ‘e & not-e ( e = event) is not impossible.30 Every causative has a result
even if this relation or causation may sometimes only be indirect.
In
passive constructions like in The car had been repaired by Tom. it is always
a direct influence on the recipient also if the actor is not always indicated.
But in active verbal constructions with a causative the influence can have
different degrees which is illustrated by the following examples: The fire
went out because of the rain falling on it./ The fire went out because of the
27
ibidem
ibidem
29
cf. Frawley 1992: 161
28
9
rain falling over the forest. Or The vase broke from the wind./ The vase
broke from the wind blowing into the curtains. The first sentence says
unequivocally that the fire had been extinguished by the rain. In the second
one it could mean that the wood which had been collected for making the
fire was wet because of the rain over the forest or it could mean that the fire
was in the forest and went out from the rain falling from the leaves. It is the
same for the second example: the wind touched the curtains that made the
vase break. In both cases the second is less causative then the first
sentence.
The influence on a result cannot only be categorised according to the
degree, or as Frawley calls it ‘the directness of relation’, but the influence or
involvement can also be shared between the participating entities. Before
making this distinction a closer look to the involvement of entities, the
semantic expression for nouns, in phrases with a causative and even in the
Ep and Er is necessary.
The salient component of a sentence is called Figure and the recede, the
entity in the background is named Ground. If Figure and Ground can be
reversed, they have the same logical status as in: Liverpool (Figure) is next
to Manchester (Ground).31
According to Frawley the causative event does not only lie in the verb itself
but “in the conversation of an entity acted on into an entity that acts [...]
abstractly: Ground(Ep)
and the Ground
Figure(Er).”32 which means that both the Figure
are participants of the causative action, like in The
woodcutter cut down the tree. The Ground is ‘the tree’
that can be
interpreted as Ground of a preceding event and the Figure is ‘the
woodcutter’. So the Figure causes the result (the tree fell down) by acting
on the Ground but it is the Ground that executes the event that arises from
the Figure’s action.
To analyse the structural reflexes of causative events, a distinction between
the directness of the relation between the actor and the recipient and the
degree of involvement of the participants (we cannot talk about recipient
and actor here because both are part of the preceding and resulting event)
30
cf. Frawley 1992: 159
cf. Frawley 1992: 163
32
Frawley 1992: 163
31
10
is indispensable. The following table explains the difference between direct
and indirect relation and between high and low involvement of the
participants.33
Directness of
Degree of
relation
involvement
direct
1.The nurse moved Causer
the patient.
indirect
-
(low) 3.The nurse had
Causee + (high)
the patient move.
2.The nurse made Causer -
4.The nurse had
the patient move.
the
Causee -
patient
moved.
Causer +
5.I had him resign
Causee -
the presidency.
Causer +
6.The mother fed
Causee +
her child pudding.
The simple form of the verb alone as in example 1 expresses directness of
a causation while in combination with make/made it means an indirect
relation between Ep and Er exist, also called manipulative causation.34 In
example 3 and 4 the causer is only the one who gives the order but he/she
is not involved in the event itself. The patient moves (= high degree of
involvement in the event) in sentence 3 and is moved (= low degree of
involvement in movement). Example 5 expresses a low involvement of
each: The causer has the control over the event and the causee has no
other choice than to resign. Causer and causee show a high degree of
involvement in sentence 6: The mother is feeding while the child is eating.
Although directness of relation and degree of involvement are two different
criterions, both can be analysed for all the upper examples by combining
them in one table.
33
34
first five examples taken from Frawley 1992: 166, 167
cf. Frawley 1992: 164
11
Directness
direct
Degree
mother
indirect
Causer +
The
fed
her
Causee +
child pudding.
Causer +
The nurse moved the
Causee -
patient.
I had him resign the
presidency.
Causer -
The nurse made the
Causee +
patient move.
The
nurse
had
the
had
the
patient move.
Causer -
The
nurse
Causee -
patient moved.
Two phenomenon are conspicuous: there cannot be sentences found that
1st have a causer with high involvement and are indirect and 2nd that have
a causer with no or low involvement and that are direct at the same time. It
is logical that the relation between causer and causee can only be direct if
the causer is involved in the resulting event. It can never be indirect if
he/she takes part in the resulting event. That is why a direct relation always
provides and needs a highly involved causer.
The English language uses constructions with have or make to indicate the
directness and the participation in the event, whereas other languages as
Russian and German encode this information in cases: dative, accusative
or instrumental case (Russian). The reason for these different concepts lies
in their language typology. Analytic languages indicate the meaning by the
word order and by adding so called functional words ( as English and
French). Latin, Russian and German for example are synthetic languages
who express the grammatical relation between words by cases.
In this chapter about causes we have had a look at how causative events
can be brought into a logical form, how Figure and Ground can be involved
in the preceding and resulting event, their relation to each other and the
degree of participation. Verbs that need a kind of impulse (from an Ep) as to
12
move, to shoot, to cut down etc. analysed together with Figure and Ground
were here considered as causatives although they themselves describe a
motion and belong to the motion events. Talmy even considers the verb to
walk as a causative because in I walked home.35 he interpretes the ‘I’ as Ep
and as Er at the same time. The person wants to walk, so gives the impulse
=Ep, and executes the action as well (= Er). So the line between motions
and causes is often very thin.
2.2.3 Contrastive analysis of indirect causatives in English and French
The comparison of structures and construction with another language often
points out particular features of a language and how it works that is why the
English indirect causatives ( causer -; causee +) shall be compared with the
French ones. The French and the English language emphasise the fact that
we cause someone to do a job for us by using different verbs: to have and
faire ( = to make): I had him cook a meal./ Je lui ai fait préparer un repas.
The have construction implies that the causee is willing and ready to act out
of his own free will36, that is why it is commonly used for services as to print,
to develop, to repair, to clean etc. To express an even stronger causative in
the sense of ‘to force someone to do something’, the English has got the
construction with ‘to make’: I made him cook a meal. In the French
sentence the indirect pronoun lui then gets the direct pronoun le: Je l’ai fait
préparer un repas. In English also another version to express indirect
causative with ‘to get’ is possible and serves to emphasise urgency: I must
get my car prepared./ Get your hair cut!
But the English indirect ‘make- causative’ is not always used for the French
indirect ‘faire- causative’: “Le pilote a fait atterrir le Boeing 747. [...] The pilot
landed the Boeing 747.”37 The conceptualisation of the situation could be
thought to be different: while the English pilot is seen as the direct actor
(causer +, causee -), the French pilot is acting to the plane in order to make
it land (causer -, causee +).
35
cf. Frawley 1992: 163
cf. Wierzbicka 1988. 241
37
Wierzbicka 1988: 245
36
13
When such semi-autonomous processes, like actions of inanimates:
machines, vehicles or dissolving sugar in hot liquids, are described, the
English emphasises the fact that the actor does not act before he/she
desires the result ( direct influence by time choice of the causer) but the
French faire functions as attribute to both, the causer and the causee, so
the emphasis lies in the fact that both take part in the process.38 The logical
form of French faire constructions would then be causer + , causee +. So
the English indirect causative with have/make does semantically not
correspond to the French faire: “the so-called indirect causation in English
means that while the agent does something, he doesn’t do anything to the
causee , before the desired effect occurs.”39 The English lexical causative is
not used here because the English feel the situation differently than the
French but it is used because the indirect causative cannot be used here:
the pilot interacts with the plane and the result is triggered off automatically.
So the usage of have and make is restricted to situations in which the
causer does not directly act onto the causee. The French would have
examples for causer + in the indirect column in the table above unlike
English.
2.3.
Motion Events
Like causatives motion events are a subclass of acts as well. A motion
describes a movement and expresses “the relation between a mover and
the act of moving.”40 So the motion ( as being dynamic like in: Tom sits
down on the floor.) clearly is part of the active events. But a motion can also
be static (when describing an event of position: Tom is sitting on the floor. –
or at least semistative as it allows the Progressive.) then motion belongs to
the states. The motion event as a whole is rather counted to the actives
than to the statives.
38
cf. ibidem
ibidem
40
Frawley 1992: 158
39
14
2.3.1. Figure, Ground, Path
Motion events can be divided into Figure, Ground and Path. In the example
The plane flew to Manchester. ‘the plane’ has the role of the Figure
because it is an physical object whose path or site is characterised.41 The
Ground can be described as “a second physical object functioning as a
reference point with respect to which the Figure’s path or site is
characterised.”42 Manchester would be the Ground. The preposition to
indicates the Path or the direction. If the Figure moves or changes its
position with respect to the Ground then stationariness is the case, like in:
Tom is sitting on the floor. The Progressive tenses intensify the information
of being stative and temporal extendable. In this example the verb to fly
also carries information about the means of transport (= conveyance).
Motion events sometimes do not only express motion but also contain
further semantic components:
2.3.2. Figure, Source/Goal, Location, Path, Conveyance, Manner, Cause
The linguist
Talmy describes the motion verb as “an event of physical
motion or stationariness.”43 This definition does not only apply to the English
language. Many languages have the same patterns concerning the
semantic structures. Frawley consumes that the structure of motion events
consists of seven components: Figure, Source/Goal, Location, Path,
Conveyance, Manner and Cause that can be conflated with the motion
event. Languages show differences in what kind of these components are
fused with the verb.
Figure: In English the Figure does usually not conflate with the verb. The
thing which is displaced emerges as entity, as Er, like in The woodcutter cut
down the tree. Some exceptions have to be mentioned: It is raining.
contains the information ‘water’ as Figure and the movement or direction:
‘falling’ as well. Further motion verbs include the Figure, too : “ Tom
41
cf. Talmy 2000: 227
ibidem
43
Talmy 2000: 226
42
15
buttered the bread. Fred painted the wall. The workers paved the road. The
farmer seeded his fields.”44, to water, to plant, to pick, to saw, to nail, to salt,
to pepper, to sift, to spread, to knead etc.
Source/Goal: The origin or destination of the motion, in semantics called
Source and Goal, are normally separated from the verb of motion: He drove
her home from the party. The English language offers a few motion events
that contain the Goal: to box, to emprison, to jail, to house45, to bag, to pack
etc. The conflation of motion and source is very seldom: to exhume ( to
displace from the ground).46 More easily verbs can be found where Source
and Goal are not one but of the same kind: to repot (from one pot into
another), to move (from one house to another), to send (from one person to
another one), to rehang ( a picture – from one wall to another), to translate
(from one language to another) etc.
Location: The Location could easily be mixed up with Source or Goal as
both describe a location, but here conflation of Location and motion means
where the action takes place: “The planets orbited the sun.”47 To fly, to
swim and to dig/ to sink also include the Location or surroundings of an
action: in the air, in the water and in the ground. To orbit can only be used
for a motion in the universe: *The wasp orbits the plate of fruits. The
Location is commonly separated from the motion event because very
seldom Location means ‘medium’ like in the upper examples but a place
can be too complex and too diverse to conflate with the motion : I am
wandering in the Alps./ I sat down in the garden./ I fell down at home
yesterday.
Path: Talmy found out that all the languages show similarities concerning
their factors of Path:” I went along the river. [...] = the nature of the figure,
I went by the river. [...] = the nature of the ground, I went across the river.
[...] = the nature of the trajectory itself.48 All three kinds of Path are encoded
in a preposition and shall be treated separately in the following.
A: Figure: The Figure means here the entity that goes along a certain path.
Whether the motion of the Figure is linear ( “I went across the road.”49) or
44
Frawley 1992: 172
cf. Frawley 1992: 174
46
cf. ibidem
47
Frawley 1992: 174
48
Frawley 1992: 175
45
16
nonlinear (The oranges dropped out of my bag and rolled
across the
street.), whether the Figure itself is countable ( The girls ran down the hill.)
or
uncountable (The water is running down the hill.) and whether it is
animate (The butterfly flies over the meadow.) or inanimate (The plane is
flying over the Alps.) does not have any impact on the choice of the
preposition.50
B: Ground: The Ground is the object that is the reference point for the path.
The number and the physical aggregate of the Ground can control the
prepositional choice. Such is the case for inside and between.51 Inside is
only semantically correct for solid entities, but not for liquid ones: The
children jumped inside the bus. *The children ran inside the
ocean. But the preposition into would work with both. Semantically seen,
between requires two entities as reference
points. Frawley writes that
countability decides whether between can be used or not.52 But it is rather
the number of the Ground that controls the usage of between: “The ant ran
between the plates. *The ant ran between the hamburger.”53 ‘Hamburger’ in
fact is meant as the mass here, but the word itself is countable and with the
plural between is totally correct: The ant ran between the two hamburgers.
The plate is countable but cannot be used in singular here: *The ant ran
between the plate. Every entity that forms the plural, under certain
circumstances also mass nouns do, is grammatically correct in combination
with between. It is true that the plural of people for example is not a mass
noun any more but countable. It is better to talk about plural and singular
here, rather than mass and countability.
C Trajectory: The Trajectory expresses which form the path has relating to
the Ground:
The motion could happen in form of a curvature (to
circumnavigate the globe), could be boundedness (The child ran across/
crossed the street.) or interioricity (Mary swam in the indoor pool.)54 A
preposition, a prefix and the whole event can carry the information about
the Trajectory.
49
Frawley 1992: 176
cf. ibidem
51
cf. ibidem
52
cf. ibidem
53
ibidem
54
cf. Frawley 1992: 177
50
17
As English belongs to the Germanic languages the Path is incorporated into
the motion event only in the more formal verbs as to enter, to cross, to
descend, to climb (the stairs) in comparison to the colloquial speech: to go
in, to go across, to go down, to go up etc.55 But in Romance languages
such as French the Path often conflates with the motion, above all also in
the colloquial language: entrer, traverser, descendre, monter, rentrer (= to
go back/ to return), sortir (= to go out) etc.
Conveyance: Motions can be carried out with or without the help of a
vehicle: to ride versus to walk. There are many other motions with means
of transportation: to sail, to ship, to fly etc. Above all in the domain of sports
many new verbs with a conveyance have developed: to skate, to ski, to
snowboard, to parachute, to paraglide, to surf, to water ski etc. The
Conveyance conflation is in some cases different in German: reiten= to go
on horseback.
Manner: Manner means how motions are carried out and are often
conflated with the verb. The degree of intensity and of speed is expressed:
“Bill knocked on the door. Vs. Bill hammered on the door. [...] The truck
went by the hitchhiker. vs. The truck blew by the hitchhiker”.56 Some verbs
even contain Manner and Conveyance: to wander, to stroll, to race.
Cause: The Cause shows the same frequency in motion events as the
Manner. Like already concluded in chapter 2.2.2. the cause is connected
with the result of a certain impulse. To cut a piece of paper: the result are
two pieces of paper because someone cut them. Also the following
examples demonstrate that cause and result are expressed at the same
time: to throw ( =cause, result = displacement through the air), to blow up
(cause = someone releases an explosion, result= displacement into pieces)
and to roll (cause= someone or something pushes something, result=
displacement in circular motion along a surface.) Even if the result is not
conflated with the verb it can be assumed: I pushed that man. It is regarded
as evident that the man moves as a result.57 The cause lies as well in to
grate and the result, that the product is grated is suggested. We assume
that someone is dead after he has been killed.
55
cf. ibidem
Frawley 1992: 179
57
cf. Frawley 1992: 179
56
18
We analysed the conflation of motion and Path, Manner, Cause, Figure,
Location, Conveyance, Source and Goal and it can be concluded that Path
is most frequently contained in motion events, followed by Manner and
Cause. The Location is the least conflated in English. All these components
relate to the physical movement of entities but an abstract point of view
enlarges the field of motion events. To give, to sell, to buy can be
understood as motion of an entity that moves from one person to another
and even to teach (source) and to learn (goal) express the transfer of
information.58
2.3.2.1.
Example: The field ‘to walk’
The conveyance is not the semantic component that is conflated with the
motion most often. But still the field of to walk is quite extensive. The
following table shows that often at least a third additional semantic
component is contained.
Motion+
Source/
Conveyance Manner
Cause
Location Figure
Goal
Path
‘by foot’
to creep
x
To limp
x
To tiptoe
x
To edge
x
To shuffle
x
To trudge
x
To paddle
x
x
To wade
x
x
To totter
x
x
To stagger
x
x
To stroll
x
To skip
x
58
x
x
x
x
cf. Frawley 1992: 181
19
To stride
x
To crawl
x
To trample
x
x
The table shows that if a second component conflates with motion events
the above named order of frequency: Path – Manner/ Cause – Figure –
Ground is not true any more. Manner is the most (always) contained in the
field of to walk. But Path only occurs separately from the verb as
preposition: to walk/ pace up and down (also includes Manner). The order
of frequency is not transferable to semantic fields with two components.
Some motion verbs like to tiptoe, to trample, to creep or to shuffle also
carry information about the sound and as giving information about intensity
the component sound belongs to the Manner. But there are motion events
as well that express (not the intensity but) the kind of sound itself.
2.3.2.2.
Motion events and sounds
To buzz, to clink, to splash, to jingle, to snap, to crash, to honk and to
crunch describe a motion and the sound. The sound is not mentioned in
Frawley’s work at all, but it could be counted to the causes as the sound is
a result of the motion and a certain impulse is needed. But also the Manner
plays a big role in sounds: the intensity between to clink and to crash is
different. To buzz can even contain motion, Manner, Cause, Location and
sound.
To clink, to splash and to honk can also be semistative (it allows the
Progressive) because it could also mean a static event (without motion):
The car driver honked. (active)/ The horn is honking. (semistative); They are
clinking glasses./ The coins are clinking in my pocket.; He splashed cold
water all over his sister’s body./ Water splashes. The semantic difference
lies ‘in making a sound itself’ and ‘to move to make something else sound’.
To fizz contains motion but is semistative. It includes even more
components: Location (water), Figure (gas), Path (upwards), Sound and
Cause (opening a bottle).
20
If the sound is expressed as well it always gives information about the
Figure as well. But as Manner and Cause are related to Sound, too, it is
difficult to assign it to one category.
Verb-framed and satellite-framed languages: English vs. French
‘Verb-framed’ means Path and Motion are conflated in a verb. If Motion
conflates with Manner then we call it ‘satellite-framed’. Languages are
categories according to the frequency of the kind of conflation. Romance
languages such as Spanish and French are verb-framed languages and
Germanic languages as English, Dutch and German are satellite-framed.59
Like already mentioned in chapter 2.3.2. English conflates motion and
Manner more likely than motion and Path: “I pushed that man. [...] I pushed
on that man.” 60 If Path should be expressed a preposition is added and the
Manner is contained in the verb.
The following example makes the difference visible: The man staggered out
of the bar. Vs. L’homme est sorti de la bar en titubant. The Path is indicated
by ‘out’ in English but the same information is carried by the French motion
event. Manner is conflated in the English motion event while in the French
language it is common to describe Manner as another motion event at the
time, in form of the gérondif: en titubant.
English is not a pure satellite-framed language hence the following
examples show exceptions: “I kicked the door shut.”61 This sentence can be
seen as gradience of two different types: The Path is indicated by a verb:
shut. But Motion and Manner are still expressed by the first part of the verb.
In the formal English also Path conflates with motion, but these verbs have
their origin in Romance languages.
59
cf. Talmy 2000: 227
Frawley 1992. 181
61
Talmy 2000: 227
60
21
3.
Inchoatives and resultives
In the second chapter two types of events – the acts and states – were
analysed by looking at the internal semantic structure of events. But both
types, the static events and the executable ones only form a part of the
event typology. If the aspectual features, the temporal components, are
taken into consideration a distinction between events that develop and
become other events through time, called inchoatives and events that
express an end or the result of a process, called the resultives, can be
made62. With the following examples My circumstances changed. and My
circumstances changed into a nightmare. Frawley points out the difference
between the inchoative to change (indicates the fact that one state became
another state) and the resultive to change into (expresses not only the
absence of one state like the first example but also describes the new state,
the new circumstances by giving the result.63
When resultives should be interrupted for example with ‘almost’, the sense
of the sentence becomes ambiguous: “We almost went to New York. Vs.
We almost went.”64 It could mean that the destination had almost been
reached before they turned or that they never left to go to New York. But
the event of inchoatives can be negated unequivocally because ‘almost’ can
only refer to the verb if the destination is not given.
Concerning the combination with the temporal preposition in and for
expressing duration acts and states are quite similar. Although states do not
allow the Progressive and because they are continuous by definition (cf.
chapter 2., which can be expressed by ‘for’ : He owned a ship for ten
years.(stative)/ He worked with Jack for a month.(active) Both do not take
the durative preposition in: *He owned a ship in ten years./ He worked with
in a month. The contrary is the case with the inchoatives: ”*My
circumstances changed for an hour. / My circumstances changed in an
hour. “65 Resultives allow both prepositions in a time frame: “My
62
cf. Frawley 1992: 183
cf. Frawley 1992: 12
64
Frawley 1992: 185
65
Frawley 1992: 185
63
22
circumstances changed into a nightmare for an hour./ My circumstances
changed into a nightmare in an hour.”66
4. Conclusion
We have developed an event typology that consists of four parts: Acts,
States, Inchoatives and Resultives. With the help of five tests: the
Progressive test, the pseudo-cleft, the ‘What happened?’ test, the
Imperative test and the ‘carefully/deliberately’ test we draw the line between
active and stative events. These tests explained their characteristics and
their possible degrees: acts are executable, unitizable and extendable while
states are not, just describing a condition.
In chapter 2.2. a subclass of acts, the causatives, has been investigated. A
causative event has got an Ep coming from the Ground and an Er
happening to the Figure. Cause, result, Figure and Ground form a unit
which can be encoded in a logical form: X Y or -X -Y. The influence of
the Ground(Ep) on the Figure(Er) can be direct or indirect, the degree of
involvement of the causer and of the causee can be low or high. A table that
combined both ( influence and involvement) showed that the causer is
never involved if the causation is indirect and that the causer is always
involved if the direct causative construction is used. This outcome also
proves the result of the comparison with the French indirect causative
construction: in contrast to the French ‘faire’ construction, in the English
indirect causative the causer is not involved in the action. The have/made
construction is restricted to events where the causer does not act on the
causee.
The huge field of motion always consists of a motion, a Figure, a Ground
and a Path. Motion events have been split up into its semantic components:
Location, Source/ Goal, Path, Manner, Cause, Figure and Conveyance. A
contrastive analyis of English and French motion events made clear that
languages differ in what component is most often conflated with motion.
English is a satellite-framed language because the motion events tend to
66
ibidem
23
incorporate the Manner rather than the Path, that is often expressed by
prepositions. The field of ‘walk’ also proved that the order of frequency
given by Frawley67 is not universally valid because it is influenced by factors
like the level of speech and properties of the semantic field. Path is only
named in the first place because many formal English verbs have their
origin in Romance languages.
Inchoatives and Resultives form the other two types of the events.
Inchoatives are events that describe processes or
that unfold and
Resultives include the result or final point of a process. The difference in
their temporal dimension is reflected in their interruptability and in the
combination with the durative in and for.
Some events can even be paraphrased as all four types: My clothes are
dry. (state), My clothes dry in the sun.(act), My clothes become dry/ start to
get dry (inchoative), My clothes became dry till 3 p.m. (resultive) and every
event fits into one of these categories.
67
Frawley 1992: 180: Path > Manner/Cause > Figure > Ground.
24
5. Bibiliography
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, Hove, London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 140-196.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Vol.II Typology and
Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantic of Grammar. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company, 237-255.
Herbst et al. 1991. Terminologie der Sprachbeschreibung: Ein
Lernwörterbuch für das Anglistikstudium. Ismaning: Max Hueber.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 1995. Munich:
Langenscheidt - Longman.
25