2.4 Semantic Roles
According to Crystal (2008: 428) semantic roles is the semantic
relations that link a predicate to its arguments in the description of a situation.
Additionally, every simple sentence, every proposition has one
predicate and a varying number of referring expression (noun phrase) called
arguments. Hurford et al (2007)
argue that the function of the predicate
is to describe the specific relationship between the things, persons, etc.
referred to, i.e. to describe how the things and/or people participate in the particular
situation described.
According to
Kreidler (1998: 66) that the predicate may be a verb, an adjective, and a
preposition or noun phrase. The arguments which accompany the predicate have
different functions, role in proposition. The meaning of predicate is
determined by how many argument they have and what role those argument have.
For example, a window broke, a plate
broke, a rope all contains verb break
and a single argument. In addition, other examples are the sentences Tom broke a window, Dick broke a plate, John
broke a rope. A window, a plate, and a
rope syntactically are object, but semantically, they have the role of
affected. The words Tom, Dick and John have the role of agent. Different
predicates (verbs, adjectives, prepositions) can be described according to the
number of referring expressions, or arguments that can occur with them and the
roles these arguments have. Furthermore, In order to portray
semantic roles of the arguments, Kreidler (1998: 70) summarize it as seen in
table 2.4 below.
Table
2.4 Semantic Role
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actor The role of an argument that
perform some actions without affecting any other entity. Sylvia left
affected The role of an argument that
undergoes due to some events or is affected by some entity. Tom broke a window
affecting The role of an argument that, without
any action, affect another entity. Betty
like opera
agent The role of argument that by its
action affect some other entity. Tom
broke a window
associate The role of an argument that tells the
status or identity other argument, the theme. Roger is a student
effect The role of an argument that comes
into the existence through the action of the predicate. Billy baked a pie
place The role of an argument that
names the location in which the action of the predicate occurs. The fireman climbed a ladder
theme The role of an argument that is a
topic of a predicate that does not express action-a stative predicate. Audrey is a computer expert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Chafe (1981) as cited in
Wagiman (2008) the roles of argument are divided into seven kinds namely:
agent, patient, experincer, beneficiary, instrument, complement and location.
Meanwhile, Hufford, et al (2007: 244-251)
mention sort of argument roles namely:
1) The
agent of sentence is a person deliberately carrying out the action describe for instance John in the sentence John
opened the door with key.
2) The
patient (often called the affected) is a thing (not usually person, even though
it may be) upon the action which is carried out, in many cases the things is
affected by action for example door in
the sentence above.
3) The instrument is the thing (hardly ever a person)
by means of which the action is carried out, the word the key as in the above sentence.
4) Location or locative. It is played by any expression
or argument referring to place in which the action described in that sentence
takes place. For instance the word Rome in
sentence Caesar was assassinated in Rome and
the word Caesar plays role PATIENT
(or affected).
5) The beneficiary is the person for whose benefit or
to whose detriment the action described by the sentence is carried out, as the
word the prime minister in the
sentence the terrorists sent the Prime Minister a letter bomb.
6) The experiencer is a person who is mentally aware
of, perceives or experiences the action or state described by the sentence, but
who is not in control of the situation. Notice the word the children in the sentence the
children heard the loud noise. In this sentence, the words the children plays role experiencer,
whereas the word the loud noise takes
role STIMULUS.
7) Theme is a thing or person whose location is
described or a thing or person which is perceived by an experience.
8) Goal is the entity or place towards which something
moves; and
9) Source is the entity or place from which something
moves
Dealing with the number of
argument roles, Crystal (2008: 428) point out that there is no general
agreement on the number of participant roles available to speakers of languages,
but he also mention some argument role such as instrument, theme, experincer,
locative, source and goal. To describe this thematic relationship holding
between verb and their argument, Foley and Van Valin
propose a theory called semantic macroroles.
2.4.1 Semantic Macroroles
Semantic
macroroles is a development of role and reference grammar (RRG). In semantic
macroroles as stated by Van Vallin in all his work that there are only two type
of semantic role called actor and undergoer. Actor is a generalization across
agent, experiencer, instrument, and other roles, while undergoer is a
generalization subsuming patient, recipient, and other roles. Agen is prototype
of actor and patient is the prototype for patient (Van Vallin, 1999; 2002).
Furthermore,
he states that they are called macrorole since each represents a number of
specific thematic relations such as agent, instrument, perceiver or recipient,
patient, theme, stimulus, recipient source or perceiver in English. These
thematic relations can serve as subject and direct object. Subject can be
agent, instrument, perceiver or recipient, while direct object can be patient,
theme, stimulus, recipient source or perceiver.
Van Vallin (2002) points out that
there is no direct correlation between macroroles and grammatical relations
even in accusative language such as Brazilian, Portugese, and English. This statement may be illustrated in the
following sentences
(7) a. The farmer killed the
duckling.
Actor(agent)
Undergoer (patient)
b.
The duckling was killed by the farmer.
Undergoer (patient) Actor (Agent)
(8) a. The rock broke the
window
Actor (Instrument) Undergoer (Patient)
b. The
window was broken by the rock
Undergoer (patient) Actor (instrument)
The
grammatical relations are different in sentence (7a) and (7b), in which (7a), the farmer as the subject; the duckling as the direct object,
whereas in sentence (7b), the duckling is
as subject; the farmer as the object. Yet, thematic relations are same due to
the role of subject of an active voice intransitive verb and the object of by in passive voice is an actor, and the
role of the direct object of active voice transitive verb and the subject of a
passive verb is undergoer. Simply, this can be said that in active voice the
actor is subject and undergoer is direct object, whereas in passive voice, the
undergoer is the subject and the actor is oblique adjunct. Likewise, in
sentence (8a) and (8b), even the grammatical relations are different, but
thematic relations are same. Consequently, in semantic macrorole there is
no change of role between actor and undergoer in clause in spite of their
syntactic is changed.
The argument as the actor and the
undergoer is not randomly selected, but it must follows the hierarchy. Van
Vallin (1999) proposes the actor and undergoer hierarchy (AUH) to explain the
relationship between macroroles and the argument positions as seen in figure
2.1.
Figure
2.1: The actor undergoer hierarchy
ACTOR UNDERGOER 
Arg of 1st arg of 1st arg of 2nd arg of arg of state
DO do’(x,…….pred’ (x , y) pred’(x,y) pred’(x)
( ‘
= increasing markedness of realization of argument as macrorole)
The basic idea of the AUH is that the leftmost argument
in terms of the hierarchy will be the actor and the rightmost will be the
undergoer. The argument of do is
highest rank and acts as the actor, while the argument of pred’ (x) is the lowest rank and acts as the undergoer.
In
RRG there is transitivity which functions to distinguish the number of
syntactic argument a predicates takes in RRG, often called M-transitivity. There
are three M-transitivity possibilities in RRG those are: transitive (2
macroroles), intransitive (1 macrorole), and atransitive (0 macroroles). Since
some verbs maybe take only a single argument, AUH is not relevant to be applied
here. Therefore, it follows the principles determining the M-transitivity. The
default principle governs macrorole selection with all verb or other predicating
elements. The default Macrorole
Assignment Principles as follows:
a.
Number: the
number of macroroles a verb takes is less than or equal to the number of arguments in its LS.
1.
If a verb has
two or more arguments in its LS, it will take two macroroles.
2.
If a verb has
one argument in its LS, it will take one macrorole.
b.
Nature: for
predicates which have one macrorole,
1.
If the verb
LS contains an activity predicate, the macrorole is actor.
2.
If the
predicate has no activity predicate in its LS, it is undergoer.
(Van Vallin, 2002)
2.5
Verb
Richard et al
(2002) verb is a word that refers to an action or state. According to Crystal (2008: 510), verb is a term used in the grammatical classification of words
which refers to a class traditionally defined as doing or actions words.
Furthermore, Crystal explained that the formal definition of a verb refers to an element which can display
morphological contrasts of tense, aspect, voice, mood, person and number.
Functionally, it is the element which can be combined with other verbs (i.e. as
a ‘verb phrase’). In many grammatical theories, accordingly, the verb is
considered the most important element in sentence structure. Therefore, the
verbs have an authority to choose the arguments which may occur with them.
In
dealing with the arguments have, Kreidler (1998) stated that predicate (verbs,
adjective, preposition) can have a valency. Valency is description of semantic
potential of the predicates in term of the number and type argument which may
occur with them. Further, he distinguishes valency into four kinds namely
valency zero, one, two and three. This can be illustrated in the following
sentences
(9) a. It
is snowing.
b. My brother snores.
c. Chris is making an omelet.
d. Agnes is
writing her mother a letter.
From the sentences (9) a-d above, the verbs snow,
sleep, make and write have different valencies those are
respectively, valencies of zero, one, two and three and each of them is typical
of a whole group of predicates.
Firstly,
valency zero is predicates that need
only one argument as the subject, but it doesn’t correspond anything. For
instance the English verb snow in the
sentence a above. In this sentence it as
the subject, but it doesn’t refer anything in underlying proposition. The other
examples are rain, sleet, thunder.
Those words are called zero-argument verb.
Secondly, valency one is predicates that requires only one argument as the
subject without object. For example the word
snore in my mother snore. The verb snore
only need a subject my mother. It
is called one argument verb. Thirdly, valency two is predicates that
need two arguments as the sentence c above.
Ultimately, valency three is that need three arguments as the sentence d above. It has three arguments like Agnes, her mother, and a letter (pg. 69-76).
Similarly,
Jackendoff in his paper writes the basic taxonomy of argument structure
including zero argument verbs, one argument verb, two argument
verb and three argument verbs Bob gave Janice some breakfast for
example.
2.5.1
Verb Semantic Classes
The Case
Grammar model and Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) underlie the verb
classification. There are three works of verb classification based on the case
grammar model. One of the most well-known is Chafe's verb classification. Chafe (1981) in Wagiman
(2008) distinguishes four types: states, processes,
actions, and action processes. State verbs describe the state or condition of a
single argument for instance the elephant is dead and they associate
with patient. In addition, it is also verb class belonging to states but
ambient; it does not argument e.g. it is hot.
Processes express a change of condition or state in its argument e.g. the
elephant died. They co-occur with Patients. Actions describe something that
verb argument does or performs e.g. Harriet sang. Hence, agent is
associated with action verbs. Similarly, as in state verbs, there is also
ambient action verb e.g. it is raining.
Action-processes account for both actions and processes. They have two
arguments, the performer of the action, Agent, and the thing undergoing the
process, Patient, for example the tiger killed the elephant (Wagiman,
2008)
Second, verb
classification on Reference and Role Grammar (RRG) by Van Valin and La Polla
which modified verb class taxonomy by Dowty (1979) to
capture the distinctions between these verb classes. Then, it
was assumed in work in RRG by Van Valin & LaPolla (1997) namely: states, activities,
achievements, accomplishments, active accomplishment, causatives. RRG is started with
lexical representation for verbs and other predicating elements in which
involve the lexical decomposition by Vendler (1957) called Aktionsart, and this decomposition is termed Logical Structures
(LS) by Dowty (Van Vallin, 2002 in press). The verb classes with their
decompositions are summarized in Table 2.5 below.
Table 2.5 Lexical
representations for Aktionsart
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verb Class Logical Structure
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State predicate´
(x) or (x, y)
Activity do´ (x, [predicate´ (x)
or (x, y)])
Achievement INGR predicate´ (x) or (x,
y), or
INGR do´ (x, [predicate´ (x) or (x, y)])
Accomplishment BECOME predicate´ (x) or (x, y), or
BECOME do´ (x, [predicate´ (x) or (x,
y)])
Active Accomplishment do´
(x, [predicate1 ´ (x, (y))]) & BECOME predicate2 ´ (z, x)
or (y)
Causative a
CAUSE b, where a, b are LSs of any type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These
LSs are starting point for the interpretation of the
thematic relations in RRG. Following
Jackendoff (1967) as cited in Van Vallin (2002) that thematic relations are
defined in terms of argument positions in the decomposed LS representations.
Both approaches, either case
grammar or RRG have a common characteristic that is they search for a subset of
semantic component and semantic roles that is fitful to describe the thematic
relations. The two approaches reveal some
interesting parallels in concerning the decomposition analysis of verb meanings
with regard to the sub classification of verbs into more or less equivalent
types, thus states = states, activity = action, achievement = process, accomplishment
= action-process.
2.5.2 Emotion
Within
the field of lexical semantics, verbs denoting emotion are usually called
psychological (psych) verbs. Then, the class of such verbs denoting emotions
like fear, anger, hate, love, etc. is commensurate with the class of
psych-verbs. In a broader interpretation, the category of psych-verbs also
includes sub-classes of perception verbs (hear, see, feel,
etc.), cognitive verbs (think, believe, etc.), and also
evaluation verbs (estimate, appreciate, etc.) (Klein
and Kutscher, 2005: 2; Kitis, 2008: 149).
The nature of emotion and the meaning of emotion terms
have been much discussed in anthropology and psychology, as well as in
semantics. As cited in Goddard (1997: 70), within psychology, there are two
main rivals approach to the emotion theory. They are cognitive approach
(Averill 1980, Ortony et al. 1988)
and social constructivism (cf. Harre Ed. 1986).
The cognitive approach views that emotions depend in
large part on mental process for instance, when someone say proud, angry, there are kind of reaction
that person is having to something they are thinking, or something they want or
don’t want to happen, need to be described.
Being proud can be described
as a reaction to thinking that is a good reason for person to think well. Similarly, with feeling angry is a reaction of person to thinking that one else has been
wronged.
Meanwhile, social constructions approach stress the
cultural aspect of emotions, saying that social judgment, cultural values, and
other cultural practices shape and create emotions. In Clifford Greertz (1975:
81; Goddard. 1997:70) emotions are cultural artifact embodying shared
understanding of human nature and social interaction.
The meaning of emotion terms in semantics field has
been discussed by Anna Wierzbicka from (1972) that has employed the concept of
a prototypical cognitive scenario, taking her cue from Tolstoy’s practice of
suggesting subtle emotions by means ingenious hypothetical scenarios (Goddard,
2002: 24). Further, Goddard states
wierzbicka’s
insight was that emotion words of ordinary language work in a similar fashion,
except that instead of linking feeling with illustrative situation they link
with hypothetical cognitive scenarios, involving thoughts and wants (p.25).
In
order to make clear this viewpoint, some example such as sadness is a bad feeling that linked to the thought ‘something bad
happened’, joy is a good feeling
linked with the thought ‘something very good is happening now’. From this
explication, it doesn’t insist the every time one feels joy, one only necessarily thinks this particular thought. The
scenario provides as a kind of reference situation by which the nature of the
associated feeling can be identified.
2.5.2.1 Emotion
Verb’s Argument
The
thematic roles of psych-verbs are usually referred to as experiencer and
stimulus, with one-place predicates allowing for an experiencer only (Klein and
Kutscher, 2005: 2-1). Further, following Dowty (1991), an experiencer is a
verbal argument whose corresponding participant in the situation named by the
verb has a sensation, an emotion, apperception, a mental attitude or state with
respect to this situation, while, a stimulus is the entity the experience.
Stimulus can have different semantic function. In spite of the typical stimulus
is an object with respect to which the experiencer feels something, a stimulus
can also function purely as a trigger for a feeling with respect to something
else. Pesetsky (1995) as cited by Klein and Kutscher (2005:16) make distinction
between stimulus as causer and stimulus as target of emotions. According to
Pesetsky, a stimulus is a causer that allows for a reading in which it only
evokes an experience, while something else constitutes the target of emotion. This
is clearly illustrated in the following examples:
(9) a. Bill was very angry at the article in the Times.
b. The article in the Times angered/enraged
Bill.
The word the
article in (9a) is not a causer, but a target of emotion, while in (9b) it
is a causer.
Broekhuis
(2008:1-3) stated every
psychological predicate has an obligatory argument that could be referred to as
the experiencer. It is an obligatory
argument that experiences or is in the mental state denoted by the predicate.
Furthermore, clauses containing a psychological predicate may take at least the
five different kinds of arguments as such as experincer, target of emotion,
subject matter of emotion, causer of emotion, and cause of emotion.
Target of emotion refers to the entity which implies a
positive or negative evaluation of the entity, and the target is expressed by
means of a prepositional phrase (PP)-complement. Besides a target of emotion a psych-adjective
can also have a subject matter of emotion, which is also expressed by means of
a PP-complement. Although the target and the subject matter of emotion are
sometimes difficult to distinguish, the distinction is real since the two can
be simultaneously expressed. Emotions cannot only target or be concerned with
some entity, but they can also be triggered by something that refers to as the causer
or cause of emotion. The notion of causer will be used when the argument is
actively involved in triggering the emotion, whereas the notion of cause does
not imply activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment