Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:2 (2014) ► pp.275–334

Stative dimensional verbs in German

| Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
Stative verbs such as German wiegen ‘weigh’ and heißen ‘be called’ encode an attribute of the subject referent such as WEIGHT or NAME and, in addition, allow for the specification of a value for this attribute. From a cognitive perspective, we refer to attributes of this type as object dimensions and to stative verbs encoding object dimensions as stative dimensional verbs. We argue in favor of the relevance of these verbs to cognitive science and semantics. After introducing basic types of stative dimensional verbs, we discuss the results of an in-depth investigation of these verbs in German. In addition to the kind of dimensions encoded by stative verbs, there will be a particular focus on contrasts in the distribution of dimension encoding verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Moreover, we will present a taxonomy of stative dimensional verbs in dependence of the specific dimension.
Keywords: stative verbs, German, dimensions, frame semantics, attributes
Published online: 8 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.2.02gam
References (75)
Ameka, Felix K. & Stephen C. Levinson. 2007. The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals, and other beasts. Linguistics 45(5/6). 847–871.Google Scholar
Baader, Franz, Diego Calvanese, Deborah L. McGuinness, Daniele Nardi & Peter Patel-Schneider (eds.). 2003. The Description Logic handbook: Theory, implementation, applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition 111. 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts, 21–74. Erlbaum: Hillsday.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2006. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2008. Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow & Martin Schäfer (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 245–265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berthele, Raphael. 2004. The typology of motion and posture verbs: A variationist account. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology. Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 93–126. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1987. Semantik der Graduierung. In Manfred Bierwisch & Ewald Lang (eds.), Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven, 91–286. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred & Ewald Lang (eds.). 1987. Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
Duden: Deutsches Universalwörterbuch. 2003. CD-ROM edition. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Caudal, Patrick & David Nicolas. 2005. Types of degrees and types of event structures. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications, 277–299. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eschenbach, Carola. 1995. Zählangaben – Maßangaben: Bedeutung und konzeptuelle Interpretation von Numeralia. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 761. 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, eventuality types and nominal reference. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
. 2012. Lexical aspect. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 721-751. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens & Thomas Gamerschlag. 2014. We’re going through changes: How change of state verbs and arguments combine in scale composition. Lingua 1411. 30–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamerschlag, Thomas & Wiebke Petersen. 2012. An analysis of the evidential use of German perception verbs. In Christopher Hart (ed.), Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, vol. 11, 1–18. [URL].Google Scholar
Gamerschlag, Thomas, Wiebke Petersen & Liane Ströbel. 2013. Sitting, standing, and lying in frames: A frame-based approach to posture verbs. In Guram Bezhanishvili, Sebastian Löbner, Vincenzo Marra & Frank Richter (eds.), Selected papers of the 9th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (LNCS 7758), 73–93. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Gamerschlag, Thomas, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.). 2014. Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gangemi, Aldo, Nicola Guarino, Claudio Masolo, Alessandro Oltramari & Luc Schneider. 2002. Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Asunción Gómez-Pérez & V. Richard Benjamins (eds.), Knowledge engineering and knowledge management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web (13th International Conference, EKAW 2002), 166–181. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawron, Jean M. 2009. The lexical semantics of extent verbs. Unpublished manuscript, San Diego State University. [URL]Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 1999. Russisch byt’ als funktionale und/oder lexikalische Kategorie. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 141, 1–39. ZAS, Berlin.Google Scholar
Gerling, Martin & Norbert Orthen. 1979. Deutsche Zustands- und Bewegungsverben: Eine Untersuchung zu ihrer semantischen Struktur und Valenz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, Robert L. & Lawrence W. Barsalou. 1998. Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition 651. 231–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guarino, Nicola. 1992. Concepts, attributes, and arbitrary relations: Some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data and Knowledge Engineering 81. 249–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The ontological level: Revisiting 30 years of knowledge representation. In Alex Borgida, Vinay Chaudhri, Paolo Giorgini & Eric Yu (eds.), Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications, 52–67. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. In Tanya Mathews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), SALT IX, 127–144. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, E. Graham. 1995. Stativity, genericity, and temporal reference. Rochester: University of Rochester dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995. Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen: Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und prädikativer Komplemente. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kegl, July & Christiane Fellbaum. 1989. An analysis of obligatory adjuncts: Evidence from the class of measure verbs. Proceedings of ESCOL 1988 (Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics), 275–288.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective. The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 301. 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse, 156–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81(2). 345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kersten, Alan W., Robert L. Goldstone & Alexandra Schaffert. 1998. Two competing attentional mechanisms in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 241. 1437–1458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klooster, Wim G. 1978. Much in Dutch. Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 217–228.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2010. The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(4). 285–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutscher, Silvia & Eva Schultze-Berndt. 2007. Why a folder lies in the basket although it is not lying: The semantics and use of German positional verbs with inanimate Figures. Linguistics 45(5/6). 983–1028.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. The temperature paradox as evidence for a presuppositional analysis of definite descriptions. Linguistic Inquiry 361. 127–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 1979. Intensionale Verben und Funktionalbegriffe. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1990. Wahr neben Falsch: Duale Operatoren als die Quantoren natürlicher Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3). 279–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. Functional concepts and frames. [URL]Google Scholar
. 2013. Understanding semantics, 2nd edn. New York, London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Evidence for frames from human language. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94), 23–68. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2003. Die logische Form von Kopula-Sätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Na, Younghee. 1986. The conventionalization of semantic distinctions. Papers from the general session at the twenty-second meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 166–178.Google Scholar
Newman, John (ed.). 2002. The Linguistics of sitting, standing and lying. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osswald, Rainer & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. 2014. FrameNet, frame structure, and the syntax-semantics interface. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94), 125–156. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petersen, Wiebke. 2007. Decomposing concepts with frames. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 21. 151–170.Google Scholar
Petersen, Wiebke & Thomas Gamerschlag. 2014. Why chocolate eggs can taste old but not oval: A frame-theoretic analysis of inferential evidentials. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94), 199–220. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piñon, Christopher. 2008. Aspectual composition with degrees. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse, 183–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal structure of events. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2000. Classifying single argument verbs. In Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane B. Grimshaw (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 269–304. Amsterdam:Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, 21–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 2005. Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 281. 687–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinitz, Renate. 1999. Die Kopula ‘werden’ und die Situationstypen. Zeitschrift für Sprach­wissenschaft 181. 121–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1996. Fictive motion in language and “ception.” In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 211–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1984. The verbs of perception: A typological study. In Bryan Butterworth, Bernhard Comrie & Östen Dahl (eds.), Explanations for language universals, 123–162. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Verbs of perception. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1294–1309. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2010. Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 1997. Zahl und Numerale: Eine Untersuchung zur Korrelation konzeptueller und sprachlicher Strukturen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Woods, William A. 1975. What’s in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In Daniel G. Bobrow & Allan M. Collins (eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science, 35–82. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1996. Lexical categories. Theoretical Linguistics 221. 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Löbner, Sebastian
2021. Frames at the Interface of Language and Cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics 7:1 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.