Decomposing semantic decomposition : Towards a semantic metalanguage in RRG 1

1 Introduction Although logical structures in Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) aspire to cross-linguistic validity, they lack an enhanced semantic component capable of encoding the set of semantic and pragmatic parameters that underlie the meaning of each predicate. Such a component would require the specification of criteria upon which to base the selection of semantic primitives. The existence of a set of undefinables has the advantage of permitting the systematic description of predicate meaning within a unified framework. However, this is presently not the case in RRG because no standardized procedure for this type of semantic codification has so far been specified. In this article we propose the use of a core set of semantic primitives as the basis for a semantic metalanguage or controlled vocabulary for the conceptual description of predicates. This would enrich logical structures by making them more systematic. 2 Setting the scene Although the inventory of logical structures has been proven to have cross-linguistic validity (cf. Van Valin, in press), the status of the set of primitives that form an integral part of these representations is somewhat less certain. To the best of our knowledge, the RRG Framework has never specified a set of semantic primitives or even a metalanguage for conceptual representation. For this reason, it is our opinion that the present inventory of logical structures is not systematic in its treatment of primitives. Example (1) shows that certain activity predicates defined by logical structures suffer from circularity since their definiens coincides with the definiendum: (1) Activity predicates sing do' (x, [sing' (x)]) walk do' (x, [walk' (x)]) drink do' (x, [drink' (x)]) In other cases the central part of the definition of a predicate is the past participle of the same term being defined. This occurs in state predicates that encode the end result of the accomplishment /activity event: (2) State predicates melt: BECOME melted' (x) shatter: INGR shattered´(x) break: do' (x,φ)] CAUSE [BECOME broken' (y)] 1 Financial support for this research has come from the following sources: (1) the research project funded by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid., grant no. 06/HSE/0132/2004; (2) research project BFF2003-04720, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education.

[1]  T. Givon.  Functionalism and Grammar , 1995 .

[2]  Robert Alfred Amsler.  The Structure of the Merriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary , 1980 .

[3]  Van Valin,et al.  Advances in role and reference grammar , 1992 .

[4]  Ricardo Mairal Usón,et al.  New Perspectives on Argument Structure in Functional Grammar , 2002 .

[5]  Anna Wierzbicka,et al.  Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and empirical findings , 2002 .

[6]  I. Mel.  Meaning-Text Models: A Recent Trend in Soviet Linguistics , 1981 .

[7]  Thierry Fontenelle,et al.  Turning a bilingual dictionary into a lexical semantic database , 1997 .

[8]  James Steele,et al.  Meaning-text theory : linguistics, lexicography, and implications , 1990 .

[9]  Michael Dummett.  Frege and Other Philosophers , 1991 .

[10]  Cliff Goddard,et al.  Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction , 1998 .

[11]  Leocadio Martín.  Lexical fields and stepwise lexical decomposition in a contrastive English-Spanish verb valency dictionary , 1983 .

[12]  Richard D. Hichwa,et al.  A neural basis for lexical retrieval , 1996, Nature.

[13]  Ricardo Mairal Usón.  Why the notion of lexical template , 2001 .

[14]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[15]  Francesco Orilia,et al.  Semantics and Cognition , 1991 .

[16]  D. K. Levy,et al.  Concepts, language, and privacy: An argument “vaguely Viennese in provenance” , 2003 .

[17]  Pamela Faber Benítez,et al.  Funtional grammar and lexical templates , 2002 .

[18]  Jurij D. Apresjan.  Systemic Lexicography as a Basis of Dictionary-making , 2012 .

[19]  George Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things , 1987 .

[20]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[21]  Sergei Nirenburg,et al.  Book Review: Ontological Semantics, by Sergei Nirenburg and Victor Raskin , 2004, CL.

[22]  A. Wierzbicka.  Semantics: Primes and Universals , 1996 .

[23]  Marie-Claude L'Homme,et al.  The Gate to Knowledge in a Multilingual Specialized Dictionary: Using Lexical Functions for Taxon , 2002 .

[24]  S. Levinson.  From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking , 1997 .

[25]  O. Silva.  Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language , 2000 .

[26]  Igor Mel’čuk,et al.  Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du francais contemporain. Recherches lexico-semantiques , 1985 .

[27]  Marie-Claude L'Homme,et al.  Using Explanatory and Combinatorial Lexicology to Describe terms , 2007 .

[28]  Randy J. LaPolla,et al.  Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function , 1999 .

[29]  A. Wierzbicka.  English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary , 1987 .

[30]  Harry A. Whitaker,et al.  Brain and Language , 1994 .

[31]  Igor Mel’čuk,et al.  Lexical functions and lexical inheritance for emotion lexemes in German , 1996 .

[32]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[33]  Ricardo Mairal Usón,et al.  Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs , 1999 .

[34]  Igor Mel'čnk,et al.  Semantic Description of Lexical Units in an Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary: Basic Principles and Heuristic Criteria1 , 1988 .