Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Verbs: a word type that has the function in the sentence to express an activity, a state or a process and to give it a temporal determination (present, future, past) through its form. See also word classes, semantic value._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Peter Gärdenfors on Verbs - Dictionary of Arguments
Gärdenfors I 181 Verbs/Croft/Gärdenfors: Croft (2001)(1) Thesis: the role of verbs is described by Croft as a predication. GärdenforsVsCroft/GärdenforsVsFrege: the concept of predication is too abstract (it goes back to Frege) and does not describe the communicative role of verbs. Moreover, verbs are not adequately characterized by predication, since adjectives also predicate. --- I 182 Verbs/Gärdenfors: have two roles: 1. Describe what has happened or should happen 2. Describe how it happens or should happen. Thesis on verbs: a verb either refers to the force vector or the result vector - but not to both. --- I 183 Meaning of verbs: a verb cannot mean something. Solution/Kiparsky: Kiparsky (1997)(2) Thesis: a verb expresses at most a semantic role, e.g. a topic,... --- I 184 ...a direction, a path. Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010, p. 25)(3) extend this idea by associating semantic roles with argument and modifier position in an event schema. The verb can then only appear as either an argument or a modifier. --- I 198 Verbs/Gärdenfors: semantic thesis: verbs refer to convex regions of vectors defined by a single semantic domain. Adjectives, however, refer to convex regions of a single domain. 1. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2. Kiparsky, P. (1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex predicates (pp. 473–499). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 3. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In M. Rappaport Hovav, D. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Gä I P. Gärdenfors The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014 |
||
> Counter arguments against Gärdenfors
> Counter arguments in relation to Verbs
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-16