pobierz

WROC£AWSKIE
TOWARZYSTWO
NAUKOWE
ROZPRAWY KOMISJI JÊZYKOWEJ
XLII
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PL ISSN 2451-294X
PAULINA WITKOWSKA
WOJCIECH WITKOWSKI
Uniwersytet Wrocławski
Wydział Filologiczny
A NOTE ON AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENT / PSYCH VERBS’
VALENCE AND EVENT STRUCTURE
ABSTRACT: This article describes the valence and thematic role assignment of a group of Polish verbs that
can be understood as denoting either movement or psychological states, in particular emotions or cognitive
processes. First, based on a neo-constructivist approach to verb meaning, it is shown how do the two meanings
of the presented verbs raise. Second, it is argued that the observed differences in terms of semantic
interpretation of the arguments can be successfully accounted for as arising from the systematic differences in
event structures that give raise to movement and psychological readings of the analysed verbs.
KEY WORDS: movement verbs, psych verbs, event structure, thematic roles
WALENCJA I STRUKTURA ZDARZENIA CZASOWNIKÓW OZNACZAJĄCYCH RUCH
I STANY PSYCHOLOGICZNE: STUDIUM PRZYPADKU
STRESZCZENIE: Artykuł omawia walencję czasowników z cząstką się typu pochylać / pochylić się, odwrócić
/ odwracać się, zachwiać / chwiać się, które są używane zarówno w znaczeniu fizycznym – na oznaczenie
zmiany pozycji ciała względem osi ciała, jak i w znaczeniu psychologicznym – na oznaczenie stanów
emocjonalnych. W artykule opisano mechanizm przypisywania ról tematycznych argumentom analizowanych
predykatów w poszczególnych znaczeniach. Wykorzystując podejście neokonstruktywistyczne, wyjaśniono,
w jaki sposób powstają te odmienne znaczenia. Wykazano, że różnice w interpretacji ról tematycznych argumentów analizowanych czasowników są rezultatem różnić w strukturach zdarzeń swoistych dla znaczeń
fizycznych i psychologicznych tych czasowników.
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE: czasowniki ruchu, czasowniki psychologiczne, struktura zdarzenia, role tematyczne
1. INTRODUCTION
This article focuses on valence of the following verbs: pochylać się / pochylić się1
‘to lean / to consider, to show compassion’, przychylić się / przychylać się ‘lean towards
/ to approve’, ugiąć się / uginać się ‘to bend / to be overwhelmed’, skłonić się / skłaniać
się ‘to bow / to approve’, nagiąć się / naginać się ‘to bend down / (force oneself) to
accept sth’, odwrócić się / odwracać się ‘to turn around / to turn one’s back on sb/sth’,
zabujać się / bujać się ‘to rock / to fall in love, to be in love’, zachwiać się / chwiać się
‘to sway / to weaver’, zatrząść się / trząść się ‘shake / to be worried, to feel eager’ and
1
It should be noted that the analysed verbs are grouped into imperfective- / perfective-form pairs. However, the grammatical aspect differences are disregarded in the presented discussion. This is motivated by the
fact that the collected corpus data did not exhibit noticeable differences in argument selection with respect to
the grammatical aspect of the relevant verbs.
PAULINA WITKOWSKA, WOJCIECH WITKOWSKI
92
wypiąć się / wypinać się ‘to stick out / to disregard’. These verbs can be treated either as
movement verbs, which denote movement of a human body with respect to its vertical
axis, or as psych-verbs, which can denote emotions, or cognitive processes.
The two readings of the selected verbs differ in the number of obligatory arguments
they select and the semantic roles that are assigned to these arguments. In this article, we
show how the observed readings of the analysed verb are obtained and discuss the
differences in thematic role marking in terms of a neo-constructivist approach to event
structure (Ramchand 2011). In section 2, we describe the semantic roles of the
arguments selected by the studied verbs in their movement and psychological readings.
In section 3, the observed differences in the argument structure are accounted for in neoconstructivist perspective. Section 4 presents the conclusions.
2. VALENCE OF THE SELECTED VERBS
We treat valence here in terms of subcategorization frame (Chomsky 1965) and
argument structure (see Grimshaw 1990; Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 2005). The subcategorization frame can be viewed as the minimal number of arguments a verb has to
select in order for the clause to be grammatical, whereas the argument structure refers to
the semantic roles assigned to arguments selected by the verb and the relation between
these roles and structural position of the arguments.
Movement readings
As it is presented below in (1)2, in movement readings, a single-argument structure
is required for the clause with the analysed verbs to be grammatical and to allow one to
encode the movement of a human body with respect to its vertical axis, which runs from
the top of the head to the base of the body3. Only the nominative case marked Noun
Phrase (NP), which functions as the syntactic subject of the clause, is obligatory. This
NP is assigned either AGENT role, if movement is volitional (see (1a) – (1g), below), or
THEME role, if movement is non-volitional (see (1h) – (1j) below).
(1)
(a)
Jan pochylił się4
John lean.3rd.past.perf
‘John leaned / is leaning.’
/
/
pochyla się.
lean.3rd.pres.imperf
2
The data presented in this article are based on corpus data obtained from Narodowy Korpus Języka
Polskiego [National Corpus of Polish] (NKJP) and Uniwersalny Słownik Języka Polskiego (USJP). However,
it has to be acknowledged that in order to make the exposition of the data clearer the nominative case marked
NPs were modified. The applied changes did not, however, alter the semantic characteristics of the referents of
these NPs.
3
Verbs analyzed in this article denote four types of movement: (i) from top to bottom, (ii) rotation, (iii)
swinging motion and (iv) oscillating movement. The part of the body with respect to which movement is
determined in the torso. Although there is no visible change in the spatial location of the body, the studied
verbs are regarded as movement verbs due to the fact that the spatial location of the torso changes during the
duration of the actions denoted by the analyzed verbs.
4
The element się present in the studied verbs is treated as a derivational morpheme. Under no
circumstances, should it be treated as a reflexive pronoun. Assuming the above treatment of się, the verbs
analysed in this work are treated as pseudo-reflexive verbs derived from forms without się by affixation
(Witkowska in press).
A NOTE ON AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENT / PSYCH VERBS’ VALENCE AND EVENT STRUCTURE
(b)
Jan przychylił się
/
przychyla się.
John lean.towards.3rd.past.perf /
lean.towards.3rd.pres.imperf
‘John leaned towards / is leaning towards.’
(c)
Jan nagiął się
/
John bend.down.3rd.past.perf
/
‘John bent down / is bending down.’
nagina się.
bend.down.3rd.pres.imperf
(d)
Jan skłonił się
John bow.3rd.past.perf
‘John bowed / is bowing.’
skłania się.
bow.3rd.pres.imperf
(e)
Jan odwrócił się
/
odwraca się.
John turn.around.3rd.past.perf /
turn.around.3rd.pres.imperf
‘John turned around / is turning around.’
(f)
Jan ugiął się
John bend.3rd.past.perf
‘John bent / is bending.’
/
/
ugina się.
bend.3rd.pres.imperf
(g)
Jan wypiął się
John stick.out.3rd.past.perf
‘John straighten up.’
/
/
wypina się.
stick.out.3rd.pres.imperf
(h)
Jan zabujał się
John rock.3rd.past.perf
‘John rocked / is rocking.’
/
/
buja się.
rock.3rd.pres.imperf
(i)
Jan zachwiał się
John sway.3rd.past.perf
‘John swayed / is swaying.’
/
/
chwieje się.
sway.3rd.pres.imperf
(j)
Jan zatrząsł się
John shake.3rd.past.perf
‘John shook / is shaking.’
/
/
trzęsie się.
shake.3rd.pres.imperf
/
/
93
However, a detailed look on the corpus data shows that the verbs presented in (1) are
more frequently used in dyadic structures than in monadic ones. The two-argument
environment consists of an obligatory nominative case marked NP and an optional dative
case marked NP or a Prepositional Phrase (PP). The data illustrating the occurrence of
the analysed verbs in two-argument structures is provided below in (2). As can be seen
in (2), the optional argument receives either the PATH ((2a) – (2e)), CAUSE ((2f) –
(2g)), BENEFICIARY ((2h)) or LOCATION ((2i) – (2k)) thematic role.
(2)
(a)
Jan pochyla się
nad stołem
/
John lean.3rd.pres.imperf over table.instr.sg
/
ku
ziemi
/
do
niego.
to
ground.dat.sg
/
to
him
‘John is leaning over the table / towards the ground / to him.’
PAULINA WITKOWSKA, WOJCIECH WITKOWSKI
94
(b)
Jan przychyla się
do
John lean.towards.3rd.pres.imperf
to
ku
rozmówcy.
to
interlocutor.dat.sg
‘John is leaning towards him / to the interlocutor.’
(c)
Jan nagiął się
do
niego
/
John bend.down.3rd.past.perf
to
him
/
ku
ziemi
/
nad balią.
to
ground.dat.sg
/
over washtub.instr.sg
‘John bent down to him / towards the ground / over the washtub.’
(d)
Jan odwrócił się
od
okna
/
John turn.around.3rd.past.perf
from window.gen.sg
/
do
ściany
/
ku
niemu.
to
wall.gen.sg
/
to
him
‘John turn around away from the window / towards the wall / to him.’
(e)
Jan skłonił się
John bow.3rd.past.perf
‘John bowed towards the ground.’
(f)
Jan ugiął się
pod ciężarem
John bend.3rd.past.perf under
weight.sg.instr
‘John bent under the weight of the bag.’
worka.
bag.gen.sg
(g)
Jan trzęsie się
z
zimna
John shake.3rd.pres.imperf
from cold.gen.sg
od
płaczu.
from crying.sg.gen
‘John is shaking from cold / from crying.’
/
/
(h)
Jan skłonił się
przed królem
/
John bow.3rd.past.perf before king.istr.sg /
‘John bowed before the king / to the audience.’
(i)
Jan buja się
w
fotelu
John rock.3rd.pres.imperf
in
armchair.loc.sg
na
drgającej
podłodze.
on
shaking
floor.loc.sg
‘John is rocking in the armchair / on the shaking floor.’ (j)
Jan zachwiał się
na
John sway.3rd.past.perf on
‘John swayed on the stairs.’
(k)
Jan trzęsie się
John shake.3rd.pres.imperf
‘John is shaking over the plate.’
ku
to
niego
him
ziemi.
ground.dat.sg
publiczności.
audience.dat.sg
schodach.
stair.loc.pl
nad
over
/
/
talerzem.
plate.instr.sg
/
/
A NOTE ON AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENT / PSYCH VERBS’ VALENCE AND EVENT STRUCTURE
(l)
95
Jan wypiął się
na baczność.
John stick.out.3rd.past.perf
straight
‘John stuck out straight.’ (lit. John stood straight.)
Psychological readings
In the previous section, we presented the arguments selected by verbs such as
pochylać się / pochylić się ‘to lean / to consider, to show compassion’, skłonić się /
skłaniać się ‘to bow / to approve’ or odwrócić się / odwracać się ‘to turn around / to turn
one’s back on sb/sth’ in clauses in which these verbs denote movement. As it was
shown, movement readings are minimally single-argument clauses, however the
analysed corpus data shows that two-argument frames are noticeably more frequent in
these readings.
The two-argument frame is likewise characteristic of the psychological readings of
the verbs presented in this article. However, in contrast to movement readings for the
clauses with psychological reading to be grammatical both arguments are obligatory, i.e.
psychological readings of the studied verbs require a nominative case marked NPs to
obligatorily co-occur with PPs. Relevant clauses illustrating these readings are provided
below in (3), where it can be seen that nominative case marked NP is assigned the
EXPERIENCER thematic role, whereas the PP is understood as STIMULUS (see (3a) –
(3c) below) or THEME (see (3d) – (3k) below).
Psychological readings discussed in the work at hand describe either cognitive
processes, i.e. psychological experiences deriving from mental functions (Verhoeven
2007), or emotions, i.e. feelings based on cognitive processes that usually involve a
three-element cause-effect chain: event triggering the emotion → emotional state →
psychological reaction (Wierzbicka 1999; Verhoeven 2007).
(3)
(a)
Jan ugiął się
pod
ciężarem
John be.overwhelmed.3rd.past.perf
under burden
odpowiedzialności.
responsibility.gen.sg
‘John was overwhelmed by the burden of responsibility.’ [cognitive
process]
(b)
Jan trzęsie się
do
John feel.eager.3rd.pres.imperf
to
‘John feels eager to do some work.’ [emotion]
(c)
Jan trzęsie się
nad dzieckiem
John be.worried.3rd.pres.imperf
over child.instr.sg
nad kompromisem.
over compromise.instr.sg
‘John is worried about his child / about the compromise.’ [emotion]
(d)
Jan pochyla się
John consider.3rd.pres.imperf
pochyla się
show.compassion.3rd.pres.imperf
nad
over
nad
for
pracy.
work.gen.sg
ustawą
/
bill.instr.sg
/
cierpiącymi.
the.suffering.instr.pl
/
/
PAULINA WITKOWSKA, WOJCIECH WITKOWSKI
96
‘John considers the bill / is showing compassion for the suffering.’
[cognitive process]
(e)
Jan przychylił się
do
prośby
John approve.3rd.past.perf
to
request.gen.sg
ku
propozycji.
to
proposition.gen.sg
‘John approved the request / the proposition.’ [cognitive process]
(f)
Jan nagiął się
do
zasad.
John force.himself.to.accept.3rd.past.perf
to
rule.gen.pl
‘John forced himself to accept the rules.’ [cognitive process]
(g)
Jan skłania się
ku
tendencjom postępowym /
John approve.3rd.pres.imperf
to
tendency.dat.pl progressive /
do
ustępstw.
to
concession.gen.pl
‘John approves the progressive tendencies / concessions.’ [cognitive
process]
(h)
Jan odwrócił się
od
przyjaciół
/
John turn.his.back.3rd.past.perf
from friend.gen.pl /
od
polityki.
from politics.gen.sg
‘John turned his back on his friends / on politics.’ [emotion]
(i)
Jan buja się
John be.in.love.3rd.pres.imperf
‘John is in love with Mary.’ [emotion]
(j)
Jan zachwiał się
w
postanowieniu
John weaver.3rd.past.perf
in
decision.loc.sg
w
wierze.
in
faith.loc.sg
‘John weavered in his decision / in faith.’ [cognitive process]
(k)
Jan wypiął się
na
rodzinę
/
John disregard.3rd.past.perf
on
family.acc.sg /
na
politykę.
on
politics.acc.sg
‘John disregarded his family / politics.’ [emotion]
w
in
/
/
Marysi.
Mary.loc.sg
/
/
3. CHANGES IN SEMANTIC ROLES AND EVENT STRUCTURE
Event structure
In this section, we will turn to the analysis of the selected verbs with respect to
structure of events they denote. Discussion presented in this section is based on a neo-
A NOTE ON AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENT / PSYCH VERBS’ VALENCE AND EVENT STRUCTURE
97
constructivist approach to event structure argued for by Gillian Ramchand (2011).
According to Ramchand, the meaning of any given verb can be captured by functional
structure consisting of maximally three projections that encode: (i) causing subevent, (ii)
process subevent and (iii) result subevent. Graphic representation of the event structure
outlined above is provided below in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Event structure (adopted from Ramchand 2011)
As can be seen in Figure1, maximal event structure consists of three subevents. The
presence of a given subevent determines the properties of an action denoted by the verb.
The causing subevent is present in the event structure only when there is an initiation
stage that leads to a subsequent process. The process subevent, which is a core of
dynamic event, is present when the action denoted by the verb is extended in time. The
result subevent is licensed if the action denoted by the verb leads to a clearly identifiable
state (result state). What is more, each of the subevents can license an argument –
‘subject of …’ – that denotes respectively: (i) the entity causing the action (INITIATOR
/ CAUSE), (ii) the entity undergoing a change of sate or the process (UNDERGOER) or
(iii) the entity that holds the result state (RESULTEE). Lastly, the XP element in Figure
1 marks the position of the rhematic material that can be hosted in the complement
position of the subevent projections.
In line with neo-constructivist assumptions, Ramchand argues that verbs are merely
bundles of cognitive and encyclopaedic information. As such, they are treated as
ROOTs, which carry no syntactic information on the number and the type of the
arguments they select and whose respective meaning is obtained by combining them
with a given event structure. Accordingly, with respect to the polysemous movement /
psych verbs analysed in the article at hand the assumptions presented above mean that
each reading of a given polysemous verb will be: (i) built around verbal root common to
all readings, (ii) generated independently and (iii) associated with a distinct event
structure.
To illustrate the above, consider the data in (4a) and (4b), where the verb in bold is
used in movement reading (4a) and psychological (cognitive process) reading (4b).
PAULINA WITKOWSKA, WOJCIECH WITKOWSKI
98
(4)
(a)
(b)
Jan ugiął się
pod
ciężarem
John bent
under weight.sg.instr
‘John bent under the weight of the bag.’
worka.
bag.sg.gen
Jan ugiął się
pod ciężarem
odpowiedzialności.
John be.overwhelmed
by
burden.sg.instr responsibility.sg.gen
‘John was overwhelmed by the burden of responsibility.’
Event structures of the data provided in (4a) and (4b) are presented below in Figure
2 and Figure 3.
Figure 2. Event structure of Jan ugiął się pod ciężarem worka (see (4a))
A NOTE ON AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENT / PSYCH VERBS’ VALENCE AND EVENT STRUCTURE
99
Figure 3. Event structure of Jan ugiął się pod ciężarem odpowiedzialności (see (4b))
In Figure 2 (movement reading), argument [Jan] is understood only as the
participant whose body undergoes the downward directed movement. Therefore, it is
located in the subject position of the process subevent projection in the representation of
event structure associated with movement reading. Being merged in this position the
argument [Jan] is the UNDERGOER of the action denoted by the verb. The second
argument [ciężar worka], which is optional as far as the valence of movement readings is
concerned (see section 2.1), refers to the object causing John to bend in (4a).
Consequently, the argument [ciężar worka] is merged in subject position of the causing
subevent and receives semantic interpretation of the CAUSE.
In Figure 3 (mental process reading), the argument [Jan] is likewise associated with
the process subevent subject position, however, in contrast to Figure 2 [Jan] is also the
subject of result subevent. The placement of this argument in two subject positions
allows one to capture that fact that John in (4b) is the entity (i) who on one hand is in
a certain mental state, i.e. John is the EXPERIENCER, therefore the argument [Jan] is
placed in the result subevent projection, and (ii) who is also undergoing a change with
respect to what he cognises, which ultimately leads to the state his is in, i.e. John is also
the UNDERGOER and the argument [Jan] needs to be placed in process subevent
domain. Lastly, similarly to (4a), in (4b) the argument [ciężar odpowiedzialności] is
treated as the phenomenon causing the action of overwhelming and is located in the
subject position of the causing subevent. Consequently, the burden of responsibility in
(4b) is assigned the STIMULUS semantic role.
As can be seen above, the theoretical model adopted in this work treats the different
readings of a single verb as by-products of combining the verbal ROOT with distinct
event structures. Distinct event structures into which the verbal ROOTs are merged
PAULINA WITKOWSKA, WOJCIECH WITKOWSKI
100
result in the relevant meanings of the verbs and impact the interpretation of the
arguments selected by the verbs in respective clauses.
Semantic roles’ changes5
Based on the assumptions presented in the previous section, here we will focus on
accounting for the regular differences in semantic roles of arguments selected in
movement and psychological readings. The questions that will be addressed here are as
follows:
• why do PATHs in movement readings become THEMEs in psychological
readings; compare (2a) – (2e) to (3d) – (3h),
• why do LOCATIONs in movement readings become STIMULI in psychological
readings; compare (2k) to (3b) – (3c).
Paths and themes
With respect the changes from PATH thematic role marked arguments in movement
readings to THEME role assigned ones in cognitive processes readings, consider the
following data in (5a) and (5b).
(5)
(a)
(b)
Jan pochyla się
John lean.3rd.pres.imperf
‘John is leaning over the table.’
nad
over
stołem.
table.instr.sg
Jan pochyla się
John consider.3rd.pres.imperf
‘John considers the bill.’
nad
over
ustawą.
bill.instr.sg
In (5a) and (5b), there are two arguments realized overtly, i.e. [Jan] and [nad stołem]
(5a) / [nad ustawą] (5b). In both clauses, the argument [Jan] is understood as a sentient
participant performing the action denoted by the verb. However, whereas in (5a) [Jan] is
the AGENT and the UNDERGOER of leaning over, in (5b) he is the EXPERIENCER of
considering. What is more, the argument [nad stołem] in (5a) is assigned the PATH role,
while argument [nad ustawą] in (5b) receives the semantic role of THEME. The change
from AGENT to EXPERIENCER between movement and psychological reading results
from the fact that in psychological reading (5b) the argument [Jan] is initially placed in
the result subevent projection, where it is assigned the EXPERIENCER semantic role.
Being assigned the EXPERIENCER thematic role in subject position of result subevent
projection, [Jan] becomes interpreted as the participant who does not consciously control
the cognitive process he experiences. Therefore, although the argument [Jan]
5
It should be noted here that thematic role assignment phenomena with respect to psych verbs have been
extensively discussed in the literature. For instance, Rozwadowska (1992) and Reinhart (2002), account for the
mapping between thematic roles and syntactic placement of the phrases that carry them in terms of semantic
features whose combinations result in appropriate thematic roles. In those accounts EXPERIENCER thematic
role is defined by [+change, +sentient, -cause] feature set. However, a detailed description of analyses
alternative to one presented in this article is beyond the scope of this work.
A NOTE ON AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENT / PSYCH VERBS’ VALENCE AND EVENT STRUCTURE
101
subsequently moves to subject of initiation subevent position it does not receive
AGENT-like interpretation6, see Figure 4.
However, the account of the assignment of PATH and THEME thematic roles to
[nad stołem] and [nad ustawą] in (5a) and (5b), respectively, requires a more detailed
look at their positions in event structure. These are presented below in Figure 3 and
Figure 4, respectively.
Figure 4. Event structure of Jan pochyla się nad stołem (see (5a))
As can be seen in Figure 4, the argument [nad stołem] occupies the complement
position in the process subevent projection. Therefore, it is interpreted as the path along
which the process denoted by the verb, i.e. movement, progresses.
With respect to Figure 5, it should be noted that the argument [nad ustawą] occupies
the complement position of the result subevent projection. In such configuration, the
argument [nad ustawą] is interpreted as the THEME7.
Importantly, comparing the event structures in Figure 4 and 5 it can be seen why the
difference in the thematic roles assigned to arguments [nad stołem] (5a) and [nad
ustawą] (5b) raises. Event structure (5a) consists of only the initiation and the process
subevents. The process subevent occupies the complement position in the initiation
subevent projection but has its complement position available for the rhematic material
to be merged in it, i.e. there is no result subevent that would have to be merged in the
complement position of the process subevent in movement readings. Consequently, the
argument [nad stołem] which is present in the clause is able to occupy the available
Complement-of-process-subevent position, where it is assigned the PATH interpretation.
6
Although the argument [Jan] consciously control the process of considering, placement of the argument
[Jan] is the subject position of initiation subevent projection appears required due to the fact that in clause John
considers the bill (see (5a)) John is understood as being in control of initiating the action of considering, i.e.
John can sentiently decide to have a closer look on the bill, however once this is done he can no longer control
the mental process that occur in his mind.
7
In Ramchand’s (2011) terminology, the complement position of result subevent is associated with the
GROUND of result role. GROUNDs of result describe result states. However, Ramchand’s treatment of
GROUNDs of result is not based on psych-verbs. Therefore, in this work we argue that GROUNDs of result in
psych-readings such as the one presented in (5b) describe the content with respect to which the cognitive
process occurs.
PAULINA WITKOWSKA, WOJCIECH WITKOWSKI
102
Figure 5. Event structure of Jan pochyla się nad ustawą (see (5b))
In contrast, in (5b), the argument [nad ustawą] cannot be interpreted as PATH
because the position in which PATH interpretation is assigned in event structure, i.e. the
complement position in the process subevent projection, is occupied by the result
subevent projection. Therefore, as the rhematic position in process subevent is not
available, [nad ustawą] argument is merged in the only available rhematic position, i.e.
complement of result subevent projection, where is it is assigned THEME semantic role.
Locations and stimuli
With respect to the change from LOCATION argument marking to STIMULUS
interpretation, consider the data in (6a) – (6b) and their event structures illustrated
respectively in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
(6)
(a)
(b)
Jan trzęsie się
John shake.3rd.pres.imperf
‘John is shaking over the plate.’
nad
over
Jan trzęsie się
nad
John be.worried.3rd.pres.imperf
over
‘John is worried about the compromise.’
talerzem.
plate.instr.sg
kompromisem.
compromise.instr.sg
As can be seen in (6a), the argument [Jan] is understood as undergoing the process
of shaking and the argument [nad talerzem] corresponds to the spatial setting at which
the action occurs. Such semantic interpretation of the arguments present in (6a) appears
to stem from the event structure in which there is only the process subevent, see Figure
6. Accordingly, as this subevent licenses only the UNDERGOER and PATH or
LOCATION roles, the two arguments present in (6a) are assigned THEME and
LOCATION thematic roles respectively.
A NOTE ON AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENT / PSYCH VERBS’ VALENCE AND EVENT STRUCTURE
103
Figure 6. Event structure of Jan trzęsie się nad talerzem (see (6a))
Figure 7. Event structure of Jan trzęsie się nad kompromisem (see (6b))
In psychological reading, more precisely emotion reading, (6b), argument [Jan] is
understood as the EXPERIENCER. Therefore, it has to be merged inside the result
subevent projection, where it receives the EXPERIENCER interpretation. The emotion
that John experiences in (6b) requires a trigger, which in the case of (6b) is realised by
the argument [nad kompromisem]. The presence of the trigger of emotion has to be
likewise encoded in the event structure. Accordingly, the event structure of (6b) has to
be composed of two subevents: the causing subevent, which hosts the trigger of emotion,
and the result subevent, which accounts for the emotional state John is in, see Figure 6.
In consequence, as the ‘subject of …’ position in the causing subevent has to be filled,
the argument [nad kompromisem] is merged in it and is interpreted as the STIMULUS,
i.e. in (6b) the compromise, or more precisely some element of it, causes John to
experience the feeling of being worried. It should be noted, however, that the twosubevent structure proposed for (6b) differs significantly from the solutions proposed by
Ramchand (2011)8, 9.
8
The approach to emotion verbs presented in this work was inspired by prof. dr hab. Ewa Willim
(personal communication).
9
Ramchand does not illustrate the event structure of verbs such ‘to worry’, however she describes the
stative predicates. She argues that they consist only of a causing subevent in which the HOLDER of the state
occupies the subject position.
As for the psych-predicates, the event structure proposed in Figure 7 does not contain process subevent
contrary to Ramchand’s analysis. This treatment of emotion denoting predicates is motivated by the fact these
predicates denote non-dynamic situations.
104
PAULINA WITKOWSKA, WOJCIECH WITKOWSKI
Comparing the event structures presented in Figure 6 and 7, it becomes evident why
clauses in (6a) and (6b) differ in terms of the thematic roles, which are assigned to
arguments present in them. The two clauses, which illustrate two different readings of
the verb trząść się, have noticeably different event structures. Consequently, the fact that
the same verbal ROOT is merged with distinct event structures accounts for the different
readings and different semantic roles assigned to the arguments.
It should likewise be noted that the event structure presented in Figure 7 is in line
with the treatment of (S)ubject (E)xperiencer verbs argued for by Arad (1998) or Biały
(2005). In those accounts, SE verbs are treated as simple events understood as states. As
such their event structure does not include the change of state and the STIMULUS and
EXPERIENCER have to co-occur for the mental state denoted by the verb to hold.
Accordingly, as it can be seen in Figure 7 the STIMULUS [nad kompromisem] and
the EXPERIENCER [Jan] are both present in the event structure as the initiation and
result subevents require clause material to fill argument slots available in their
projections. Furthermore, the lack of the process subevent in the event structure in
Figure 7 ensures the lack of process interpretation in the clause under consideration10.
4. CONCLUSION
This article has described how the meaning, valence and the thematic role
assignment differences exhibited by Polish verbs that can express either movement or
psychological states are generated. It was shown that observed facts can be described as
arising from the differences in the event structures with which the studied verbs are
compatible.
With respect to the changes in thematic role marking, the analysed examples show
that a full description of this phenomenon has to take into account both the differences in
the event structures relevant for movement and psychological readings and the structural
positions assigned to the arguments selected by the studied verbs. For instance,
movement readings allow for PATH interpretation of the second argument as event
structure associated with them possesses an available argument slot in process subevent
complement position. Consequently, the when this position is occupied by the result
subevent projection the second argument occupies the next available position, i.e. the
complement position of result subevent.
REFERENCES
Arad, M. (1998). Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10. London: University College.
Biały, A. (2005). Polish Psychological Verbs at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface in Cross-linguistic Perspective.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Levin, B., Rappaport-Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NKJP – Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [National Corpus of Polish]. Dostęp: www.nkjp.pl (28.09.
2016).
Ramchand, G. C. (2011). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
10
The account presented at this stage applies to those psych-verbs that express emotional states. As for
the verbs that denote cognitive process, the approach presented for the event structure in Figure 5 holds. In
contrast to emotion denoting verbs, cognitive process denoting verbs require process subevent in their event
structure to properly account for the dynamicity of the denoted processes.
A NOTE ON AMBIGUOUS MOVEMENT / PSYCH VERBS’ VALENCE AND EVENT STRUCTURE
105
Reinhart, T. (2002). The Theta-System-An overview, Theoretical Linguistics, 28.3, 229–290.
Rozwadowska, B. (1992). Thematic Constraints on the selected constructions in English and Polish.
Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
USJP – Dubisz, S. (ed.). (2003). Uniwersalny Słownik Języka Polskiego, t. 1–4 (CD). Warszawa: PWN.
Verhoeven, E. (2007). Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya. A Typologically Based Analysis of
a Functional Domain in Mayan Language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions Across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Witkowska, P. (in press). Czasowniki zmiany pozycji ciała. Analiza formalna w ujęciu korpusowym
i statystycznym. Wrocław: Quaestio.