How did you break that?
Semantic boundaries of Italian and English action verbs encoding breaking events
Cross-linguistic research has brought extensive evidence on how languages differ in their categorization of
actions and events, pointing out the differences in the semantic categories they establish, their boundaries and their degree of
granularity with respect to the variety of events they refer to. Verbs describing breaking events vary in terms of generality or
specificity of the action description (e.g., breaking or snapping a twig) or salience of specific semantic components
characterising the event (e.g., smash being associated with violent destruction) and the same event can be
construed differently within the same language (e.g., crack/break an egg). In this article we set out to explore
the semantic boundaries of verbs describing breaking events within and between languages. We propose a new methodology combining
corpora and a video ontology, using verb pairs generally regarded as translation equivalents in bilingual dictionaries. The study
contributes to research on semantic categorization and verbs correspondences between Italian and English.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Breaking verbs and breaking events
- 3.Data and resources
- 3.1Imagact
- 3.2Corpora: TenTen family
- 4.Methodology and procedure
- 4.1Annotation schema and parameters
- 4.2Parameters and the video annotation
- 4.3Inter-annotator agreement
- 5.Results
- 5.1Corpora annotation
- 5.2Visualisation model
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Conclusions
- Authorship contribution statement
- Notes
-
References
References (42)
References
Bouveret, M. and Sweetser, E. 2009. Multi-Frame
Semantics, Metaphoric Extensions and Grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society 35(1): 49–59. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowerman, M. 2005. Why
can’t you ‘Open’ a Nut or ‘Break’ a Cooked Noodle? Learning Covert Object Categories in Action Word
Meanings. In Building Object Categories in Developmental
Time, L. Gershkoff-Stowe and D. Rakison (eds), 209–243. Mahwah: Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, S. (2014). From Visual Prototypes of Action to Metaphors Extending the IMAGACT Ontology of Action to Secondary Meanings. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014). Tenth Joint ISO-ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. Reykjavik, Iceland, 26 May 2014. European Language Resources Association. 53–56.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cadierno, T., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. and Hijazo-Gascón, A. 2016. Semantic
Categorization of Placement Verbs in L1 and L2 Danish and Spanish. Language
Learning 66(1): 191–223. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cennamo, M. 2015. Valency
Patterns in Italian. In Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies
from Africa and Eurasia (Volume 1), A. Malchukov and B. Comrie (eds), 417–482. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A. 2004. Cognitive
Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C. 1970. The
Grammar of Hitting and Breaking. In Readings in English
Transformational Grammar, R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds), 120–133. Ginn: Waltham.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fuji, S. I., Radetzky, P. and Sweetser, E. 2013. A
Multi-Frame Semantics of Separation Verbs. In Language and the
Creative Mind, M. Borkent, B. Dancygier and J. Hinnell (eds), 137–153. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gagliardi, G. 2015. Validazione
dell’ontologia dell’azione IMAGACT per lo studio e la diagnosi del Mild Cognitive
Impairment. PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Firenze.
Gärdenfors, P., Jost, J. and Warglien, M. 2018. From
Actions to Effects: Three Constraints on Event Mappings. Frontiers in
Psychology 9(1391): 1–13. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Husson, F. and Josse, J. 2014. Multiple
Correspondence Analysis. In The Visualization and Verbalization of
Data, J. Blasius and M. Greenacre (eds), 164–184. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis Group LLC.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V. and Rychlý, P. 2013. The
TenTen Corpus Family. Paper presented at the Seventh International
Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2013), England, 23–26 July
2013. Available at [URL]
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kemmerer, D. 2019. Concepts
in the Brain: The View from Cross-Linguistic
Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. 1986. Abstract
Motion. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society. Berkeley, California, USA, 15–17 February. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 455–471. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levin, B. 1993. English
Verb Classes and Alternation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McEnery, T. and Xiao, R. 2007. Chapter
2. Parallel and Comparable Corpora: What is
Happening? In Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the
Translator, G. Anderman and M. Rogers (eds), 18–31). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Majid, A., Boster, J. S. and Bowerman, M. 2008. The
Cross-Linguistic Categorization of Everyday Events: A Study of Cutting and
Breaking. Cognition 109(2): 235–250. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Van Staden, M. and Boster, J. S. 2007. The
Semantic Categories of Cutting and Breaking Events: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Cognitive
Linguistics 18(2): 133–152. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Malt, B. C., Gennari, S. and Imai, M. 2010. Lexicalization
Patterns and the World-to-Words Mapping. In Words and the Mind: How
Words Capture Human Experience, B. C. Malt and P. Wolff (eds), 29–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matlock, T. 2004a. Fictive
Motion as Cognitive Simulation. Memory &
Cognition 321: 1389–1400. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matlock, T. 2004b. The
Conceptual Motivation of Fictive Motion. In Studies in Linguistic
Motivation, G. Radden and K. Panther (eds), 221–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matsumoto, Y. 1996. Subjective
Motion in English and Japanese Verbs. Cognitive
Linguistics 71: 183–226. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mereu, L. and Piunno, V. 2019. The Argument Structure of Verbs of Hitting and Breaking in Italian. Lingue e Linguaggio 18(1): 143–176.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moneglia, M., Monachini, M., Calabrese, O., Panunzi, A., Frontini, F., Gagliardi, G. and Russo, I. 2012. The IMAGACT Cross-Linguistic Ontology of Action. A New Infrastructure for Natural Language Disambiguation. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). Istanbul, Turkey, 21-27 May 2012. European Language Resources Association. 948–955.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moneglia, M., Panunzi, A. and Gregori, L. 2018. Action
Identification and Local Equivalence of Action Verbs: The Annotation Framework of the IMAGACT
Ontology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation (LREC 2018). Workshop 7 –Annotation, Recognition and Evaluation of Actions
(AREA). Miyazaki, Japan, 7–12 May 2018. European Language Resources Association. 23–30.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panunzi, A., De Felice, I., Gregori, L., Jacoviello, S., Monachini, M., Moneglia, M., Quochi, V. and Russo, I. 2014. Translating
Action Verbs Using a Dictionary of Images: The IMAGACT Ontology. Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX
International Congress: The User in Focus. Bolzano, Italy, 15–19 July
2014. EURAC research. 1163–1170.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pustejovsky, J. 2017. The
Semantics of Lexical Underspecification. Folia
Linguistica 51(s1000): 323–347. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rissman, L., van Putten, S. and Majid, A. 2022. Evidence
for a Shared Instrument Prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive
Science 46(5): 13140. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Slobin, D., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eisenbeiss, S. and Narasimhan, B. 2011. Putting
Things in Places. Developmental Consequences of Linguistic
Typology. In Event Representation in Language and
Cognition, J. Bohnemeyer and E. Pederson (eds), 134–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Suchomel, V. and Pomikálek, J. 2012. Efficient
Web Crawling for large Text Corpora. Proceedings of the Seventh Web as Corpus Workshop
(WAC7). Lyon, France, 17
April 2012. 39–43.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Slobin, D. I., Ibarretxe-Antunanõ, I., Kopecka, A. and Majid, A. 2014. Manners of Human Gait: A Crosslinguistic Event-Naming Study. Cognitive Linguistics 25(4): 701–741. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L. 1996. Fictive
Motion in Language and “ception”. In Language and
Space, P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. F. Garrett (eds), 211–276. Cambridge: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vanelli, L. 2019. Modelli
di frase a confronto. Punti di forza e nodi critici della grammatica valenziale. Italiano
LinguaDue 21: 364–378.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Viberg, Å. 2020. Contrasting
Semantic Fields Across Languages. In New Approaches to Contrastive
Linguistics: Empirical and Methodological Challenges, R. Enghels, B. Defrancq and M. Jansegers (eds), 265–312. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Viberg, Åke
2024.
Katerina Stathi: Granularity in the verbalization of events and objects
.
Folia Linguistica 58:1
► pp. 251 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.