The idea that verb meanings may consist of two distinct parts, a systematic, classdefining part vs. an idiosyncratic, verb-specific part, is similar to proposals that have been made for content words in general. Fillmore (1970: 131) notes that a very similar idea is found in the general theory of word meaning proposed by Katz & Fodor (1963). These authors suggest that word meanings are made up of systematic components of meaning, which they refer to as semantic markers, plus an idiosyncratic residue which they refer to as the distinguisher.
This proposal is controversial, but there do seem to be some good reasons to distinguish systematic vs. idiosyncratic aspects of meaning. As we have seen, Fillmore and Levin demonstrate that certain rules of syntax are sensitive to some components of meaning but not others, and that the grammatically relevant components are shared by whole classes of verbs. Additional motivation for making this distinction comes from the existence of systematic polysemy. It seems logical to expect that rules of systematic polysemy must be stated in terms of systematic aspects of meaning.
However, there is no general consensus as to what the systematic aspects of meaning are, or how they should be represented.20 Some scholars even deny that components of meaning exist, arguing that word meanings are atoms, in the sense defined in §7.4.21 Under this “atomic” view of word meanings, lexical entailments might be expressed in the form of meaning postulates like the following:
(34) ∀x[STALLION(x) → MALE(x)]
∀x[BACHELOR(x) → ¬MARRIED(x)]
Many scholars do believe that word meanings are built up in some way from smaller elements of meaning. However, a great deal of work remains to be done in determining what those smaller elements are, and how they are combined.
Further reading
Engelberg (2011) provides a good overview of the various approaches to and controversies about lexical decomposition and componential analysis. Lyons (1977: 317ff.) discusses some of the problems with the binary feature approach to componential analysis. The first chapter of Levin (1993) gives a very good introduction to the Fillmore-type analysis of verb classes and what they can tell us about verb meanings, and Levin (2015) presents an updated cross-linguistic survey of the topic.
Discussion exercises
A. Componential analysis of meaning. Construct a table of semantic components, represented as binary features, for each of the following sets of words:
1. bachelor, spinster, widow, widower, husband, wife, boy, girl
2. walk, run, march, limp, stroll
3. cup, glass, mug, tumbler, chalice, goblet, stein
B. Locative-alternation (“spray-load”) verbs.a Based on the following examples, fill in the table below to show which verbs allow the goal or location argument to be expressed as direct object and which verbs allow the displaced theme argument to be expressed as direct object. Try to formulate an analysis in terms of meaning components to account for the patterns you find in the data.
(1) a. Jack sprayed paint on the wall.
b. Jack sprayed the wall with paint.
(2) a. Bill loaded the cart with apples.
b. Bill loaded the apples onto the cart.
(3) a. William filled his mug with guava juice.
b. *William filled guava juice into his mug.
(4) a. *William poured his mug with guava juice.
b. William poured guava juice into his mug.
(5) a. Ailbhe pushed the bicycle into the shed.
b. #Ailbhe pushed the shed with the bicycle. [different meaning]
(6) a. Harvey pulled me onto the stage.
b. #Harvey pulled the stage with me. [different meaning]
(7) a. Libby coated the chicken with oil.
b. ?*Libby coated the oil onto the chicken.
(8) a. Mike covered the ceiling with paint.
b. *Mike covered the paint onto the ceiling.
a Adapted from Saeed (2009), ch. 9
Homework exercises
Causative/ inchoative alternation.a Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998: 102–105) propose a semantic explanation for why some change of state verbs participate in the causative/ inchoative alternation (John broke the window vs. the window broke), while others do not. They suggest that verbs which name events that must involve an animate, intentional and volitional agent never appear in the intransitive form. This hypothesis predicts that only (but not necessarily all) verbs which allow an inanimate force as subject should participate in the alternation, as illustrated in (a–b). Your tasks: (i) construct examples like those in (a–b) to test this prediction for the following verbs, and explain what your examples show us about the hypothesis: melt, write, shrink, destroy; (ii) Use Levin & Rappaport Hovav’s hypothesis to explain the contrasts in sentences (c–d).
a. A terrorist/*tornado assassinated the governor.
*The governor assassinated.
b. The storm broke all the windows in my office.
All the windows in my office broke.
c. The sky/*table cleared.
d. Paul’s window/*contract/*promise broke.
a Adapted from Saeed (2009: 298), ex. 9.3.
