The semantics of verbs

1.2. 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).
Verbs of Motion include 9 classes:

• 
  Inherently directed motion (arrive, go,...),
  
• 
  Leave verbs,
  
• 
  Manner of motion:
  
  • 
    Roll verbs (bounce, float, move, ...),
    
  • 
    Run verbs (bounce, float, jump, ...),
    
• 
  Manner of motion using a vehicle:
  
  • 
    Vehicle name verbs (bike, ...),
    
  • 
    Verbs not associated with vehicle names (fly,..),
    
• 
  Waltz verbs (boogie, polka, ...),
  
• 
  Chase verbs (follow, pursue, ...),
  
• 
  Accompany verbs.
  

Note that the labels `Roll' and `Run' do not totally cover the semantics of the verbs in the corresponding class. Also, the difference between the two classes is not very clear. Waltz and chase verbs are interesting examples of very specific classes which can be constructed from alternations. However, few domains are represented, and major ones are missing or under-represented (e.g. type of movement, medium of movement, manner of motion, etc.).
Verbs of transfer of possession include 9 classes:

• 
  Give verbs (feed, give, lease, ...),
  
• 
  Contribute verbs (distribute, donate, submit, ...),
  
• 
  Providing:
  
  • 
    Fulfilling verbs (credit, provide, ...),
    
  • 
    Equip verbs (arm, invest, ...),
    
• 
  Obtaining:
  
  • 
    Get (book, buy, call, cash, order, phone, ...),
    
  • 
    Obtain (accept, accumulate, seize, ...),
    
• 
  Future having verbs (advance, assign, ...),
  
• 
  Exchange verbs,
  
• 
  Berry verbs (nest, clam, ...).
  

In this example, the difficulty of defining the semantics of a class is evident, e.g.: fulfilling, future having: these terms do not exactly characterize the class. Note also the Get class is very large and contains very diverse verbs. Domain descriptions (family, education, law, etc.) as well as moral judgements on the transfer (legal, illegal, robbery) are not accounted for in this classification.
It is of much interest to analyze in depth the set of verbs which undergo an alternation. It is also interesting to analyze exceptions, i.e. verbs not associated with an alternation but which are closely related to verbs which are associated with it, in order to narrow down the semantic characterization of this alternation.
Besides the theoretical interest, the underlying semantics conveyed by syntactic construction plays an important role in semantic composition and in the formation of lexicalization patterns 2.5.1.
There is, first, a principle of non-synonymy of grammatical forms: `a difference in syntactic form always spells a difference in meaning' which is commonly assumed. We have, for example, the following syntactic forms with their associated Lexical Semantic Template (Goldberg 94):

• 
  Ditransitive: X CAUSES Y to RECEIVE Z,
  
• 
  Caused Motion: X CAUSES Y to MOVE Z,
  
• 
  Resultative: X CAUSES Y to BECOME Z,
  
• 
  Intransitive Motion: X MOVES Y,
  
• 
  Conative: X DIRECTS action AT Y.
  

¿From these general observations, we see that form and meaning cannot be considered apart. ¿From the point of view of the principle of compositionality, the meaning of a sentence should not only be derived from the meaning of its components, but it should also include the implicit, partial semantics associated with the syntactic construction. Let us now consider several examples.
About the identification of relevant meaning components
The problem addressed here is the identification in verbs of those meaning components which determine whether a verb does or does not undergo a certain alternation, explains that in the conative construction, where the transitive verb takes an oblique object introduced by the preposition at instead of a direct NP, there is the idea that the subject is attempting to affect the oblique object, but may not succeed. But the conative alternation applies to much narrower sets of verbs than those whose actions could be just attempted and not realized. For example, verbs of cutting and verbs of hitting all undergo the alternation, but verbs of touching and verbs of breaking do not.
It turns out, in fact, that verbs participating in the conative construction describe a certain type of motion and a certain type of contact.
The same situation occurs for the Part-possessor ascension alternation (Ann cuts John's arm  Ann cuts John on the arm) which is also accepted by verbs of motion followed by contact. Here verbs of breaking do not participate in that alternation whereas verbs of hitting and touching do.
Finally, the Middle alternation, which specifies the ease with which an action can be performed on a theme, is accepted only by verbs that entail a real effect, regardless of whether they involve motion or contact. Therefore, verbs of breaking and of cutting undergo this alternation whereas verbs of touching do not.
As can be seen from these examples, a common set of elements of meaning can be defined for a set of alternations, such as motion, contact and effect, which contributes to differentiating the semantics conveyed by alternations, and therefore to characterizing quite precisely verbs which potentially undergo an alternation or not. Therefore, membership of a verb in a class depends on some aspects of meaning that the semantic representation of the verb constrains. These aspects may moreover be surprisingly subtle and refined, and difficult to identify and to describe in a formal system. These observations reinforce the arguments in favor of a certain autonomy of lexical semantics.
The dative alternation
The dative alternation applies to a number of verbs of transfer of possession, but the semantic components which account for the difference between verbs which do accept it and those which do not are very subtle. This alternation conveys the idea of X CAUSE Y to HAVE Z. However, as noted by [Pin89], while the class of verb of instantaneous imparting of force causing a ballistic motion (throw, flip, slap) allow the dative alternation, the verbs of continuous imparting of force in some manner causing accompanied motion do not (pull, push, lift).
Similarly, verbs where "X commits himself that Y will get Z in the future" allow the dative alternation (offer, promise, allocate, allot, assign). There are also verb classes which accept either one or the other form of the dative alternation (with or without the preposition to). Verbs of 'long-distance' communication (fax, telephone) also accept this alternation.
¿From these examples, it is possible to deduce that the dative alternation is accepted by verbs where the actor acts on a recipient (or a destination) in such a way that causes him to possess something. This is opposed to the actor acting on an object so that it causes it to go to someone. For example, in verbs like push, the actor does not have in mind a priori the destination, but just the object being pushed. On the contrary, ask accepts the dative alternation because when someone is asking something he has (first) in mind the way the listener will react; the `physical' transfer of the information is in general less important.
The location alternations
The location alternations (a family of alternation which involve a permutation of object1 and object2 and a preposition change) are also of much interest. Participation in certain of these alternations allows one to predict the type of motion and the nature of the end state. Verbs which focus only either on the motion (e.g. pour) or on the resulting state (e.g. fill) do not alternate. Verbs that alternate constrain in some manner both motion and end state. Let us now specify in more depth these constraints, since in fact quite a few verbs do alternate.
For example, let us consider the into/with alternation. differentiates among verbs which more naturally accept the into form as their basic form and those which alternate with a with form. Their general form is:
Verb NP(+theme) onto NP(+destination), and they alternate in:
Verb NP(+destination) with NP(+theme).
These verbs naturally take the theme as object (e.g. pile). Other verbs more naturally
take the location/container as object (e.g. stuff), their basic form is more naturally:
Verb NP(location) with NP(+theme), and alternate in:
Verb NP(+theme) onto NP(+destination).
For these two types of constructions, only a very few verbs strictly require the presence of the two objects.
Fillmore’s well-known study, “The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking”, shows how examining verb behavior can provide insight into verb meaning via a case study of two verbs. This study also introduces two important semantic verb classes.
break and hit pattern together in some ways: both are transitive and take instrument with phrases.
a. The boy broke the window with a ball.
b. The boy hit the window with a ball.
But not in all ways: There are divergences in their argument realization options.
Availability of the causative alternation:
a. The boy broke the window. (break-transitive: ‘cause to break-intransitive’) The window broke.
b. The boy hit the window. ∗ The window hit.
Availability of stative adjective:
a. The window was broken. (stative and eventive readings)
b. The window was hit. (eventive reading only)
Availability of body-part possessor ascension:
a. I broke his leg./*I broke him on the leg.
b. I hit his leg./I hit him on the leg.
Availability of the with/against alternation:
a. Perry broke the fence with the stick.
Perry broke the stick against the fence. (sentences are not near-paraphrases)
b. Perry hit the fence with the stick.
Perry hit the stick against the fence. (sentences are near-paraphrases)
• THE QUESTIONS: Why do these two verbs show divergent behavior? Why do the divergences take the forms that they do?
The verbs break and hit are each representative of a larger semantically identifiable class of verbs.
a. Break Verbs: bend, fold, shatter, crack
→ verbs of change of state
b. Hit Verbs: slap, strike, bump, stroke → verbs of surface contact
Each set shows semantic coherence:
— break verbs involve a change of state in an entity,
— hit verbs involve contact, often forceful, with an entity, without entailing a change in its state.
a. The rocks hit the windshield, but luckily it wasn’t damaged.
b. # The rocks broke the windshield, but luckily it wasn’t damaged.
The fact that classes of verbs with similar meanings show characteristic argument realization patterns suggests the patterns can be attributed to facets of meaning common to class members.
Further support: comparable classes of verbs, again with distinct behavioral patterns, can be identified in other languages, such as Lhasa Tibetan, Berber, Warlpiri, and Winnebago.
CONSEQUENCE: Common characterization of both verbs as “agent-act-on-patient” is inadequate.
SUMMARY:
Fillmore’s case study shows how semantic and syntactic properties of a verb are not idiosyncratic, but may be attributed to an entire class.