PROTOTYPE THEORY AND THE MEANING OF VERBS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MODERN GREEK VERBS OF MOTION by Eleni Antonopoulou A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Oriental and African Studies University of London 1987 ProQuest Number: 10731450 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731450 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ABSTRACT The present study tests the applicability of Prototype theory, selected among competing theoretical frameworks, to a lexical semantic analysis of verbs, with particular reference to the previously uncharted domain of Modern Greek verbs of motion. A number of the characteristics which Prototype theory established in connection with certain types of nouns are demonstrated to pertainto verbs: their meaning is not a matter of necessary and sufficient conditions, but rather a matter of gradation; their attributes combine in non-arbitrary ways to form categories with fuzzy boundaries the members of which are non-equivalent. Two categorizations of motion verbs according to 'major classificatory properties' are discussed at length. First, 'states', 'processes' and 'events' are shown to constitute a continuum, the focal points of which are identifiable on the basis of the interaction of factors such as spatio-temporal specifications, aspect, inherent semantic properties of individual verbs and the nature of the 'theme' (moving object). Second, 'causativity' and 'agentivity' are understood as distinct, to some extent, clusters of scalar properties and different Modern Greek motion verbs are shown to exhibit these properties to a greater or lesser degree. In seeking to determine which factors may be responsible for the formation of verb categories, it is recalled that the validity of the principle of 'family resemblance' and the method for identifying the 'basic' level .of abstraction cannot be tested in the case of verbs. It is suggested that other factors may be operative, such as the relative 'salience' of certain combinations of properties, 'linguistic markedness', fam iliarity and frequency. This tentative conclusion is reinforced with respect to Modern Greek verbs of motion by the results of specific tests. - 2 - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. D.C. Bennett for his invaluable guidance and advice and his infinite patience and constant encouragement. I am also deeply indebted to Professor D. Theophanopoulou-Kontou for her inestimable intellectual stimulation and personal kindness. My thanks are also due to several friends and colleagues, too numerous to mention here, for advice and much needed moral support. Particular mention must be made of Miss A. Kokkoli, who helped with several parts of this manuscript, of Dr. S. Asproudis, who assisted in the statistical analysis of test results, and of Miss A. Tsomlektsoglou, who demonstrated great skill arid diligence in putting this thesis into its final form. ^ Note : Th e major work for this dissertation was carried out during my years at SOAS and was substantially complet­ ed before 1983. - 3 - CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................10 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR A LEXICAL SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF MOTION VERBS...........................................................................................................13 1.1 A case for linguistic lexical semantics ...........................................13 1.2 Existing theoretical frameworks: a discussion .............................20 1.2.1 Componential analysis: the 'major' shortcomings ............20 1.2.1.1 Nature of features........................................20 1.2.1.2 Markedness........................................................................24 1.2.1.3 Atomicity and universality of features 25 1.2.2 Componential analysis and semantic field theories viewed as structural ist theories .......................... 28 1.2.3 The empirical validity of componential analysis., 29 1.2.4 Componential analysis and semantic field theories: the 'minor' shortcomings ............................................... 31 1.2.5 Structuralism, descriptive adequacy, and the case of motion verbs .............................................................. 33 1.2.6 Structuralism vs Prototype theory: conceptualization and extra!inguistic re a lity ...,45 1.3 Prototype theory and human categorization ...................................... 49 1.3.1 On Putnam's stereotypes..................................................................49 1.3.2 On Rosch's prototypes .......................................................................59 1.3.2.1 Stereotypes and prototypes: common ground.............................................. 59 1.3.2.2 Prototype theory as a theory of categorization. ............................................................61 1.3.2.3 The basic level of abstraction ...........................62 1.3.2.4 Category formation..............................................64 1.4 Delimitation of the field of motion verbs .......................................70 Notes on Chapter 1.................... ...78 . 4 - 2. THE 'STATES-PROCESSES-EVENTS' CATEGORIZATION AND ITS APPLICATION TO MOTION VERBS................................................................................82 2.1 Preliminaries.......................................................................................................82 2.2 An overview of the standard tests for distinguishing between states-processes-events and how to fail them .................83 2.3 Further criteria for the definition of states-processes-events, ..............................................................................88 2.4 Adverbials of time and goal vs locative ............................... 93 2.5 Aspect, states-processes-events, and Modern Greek motion verbs .........................................................................................................97 2.6 Nature of the theme.. ..................................................................................102 2.7 Concluding remarks on the redefinition of states-processes-events ..............................................................................104 2.8 Test frames...................... 108 2.9 Comments on List I I I . ............................................................ 110 Notes on Chapter 2............................................................................. 116 3. THE 'CAUSATIVITY-AGENTIVITY' CATEGORIZATION AND ITS APPLICATION TO MOTION VERBS..............................................................................117 3.1 How separate can the notions of 'causativity' and 'agentivity' be kept? ..................................................................................117 3.2 Identifying Modern Greek causatives of motion ............................ 127 3.2,1 Non-causative transitives .........................................................,138 3.3 Agentivity as a cluster of properties ..............................................143 3.4 Transitivity and agentivity .....................................................................150 3.5 Direct vs indirect causatives ................................................................157 3.6 Agentivity measurements for intransitives .....................................170 3.7 Modern Greek mediopassives and passives as intransitives ........................ 176 Notes on Chapter 3................................................................................ 189 - 5 - 4. PRINCIPLES OF CATEGORIZATION AND MINOR PROPERTIES OF MOTION VERBS...............................................................................................................................194 4.1 Principles of categorization of motion verbs. .............................194 4.1.1 Taxonomies for verbs. .....................................................................199 4.1.2 Levels of inclusiveness and linguistically unmarked categories .........................................................................204 4.1.3 Taxonomic sets proposed for Modern Greek motion verbs ................................................................................ ,209 4.2 Minor properties of Modern Greek motion verbs ............................224 4.2.1 'Change-of-location' and 'directionality' ........................227 4.2.2 'Path' and 'dependent motion'...................................................231 4.2.3 'Change of orientation'..............................................................234 4.2.4 'Manner', 'medium', and 'instrum entality'........................237 4.3 Hierarchy of properties: taxonomies and paradigms......................250 4.4 Motion verbs and the non-arbitrariness of categories .............258 Notes on Chapter 4..................................................................................................252 5. ELICITING INFORMATION FROM NATIVE SPEAKERS............................................265