6.5 Non-predicative phrase annotation
6.5.4 Semantic information about arguments and adjuncts
Semantic labels
In the matter of semantic representation, the model is strongly influenced by func-tional approaches, mainly the Funcfunc-tional Grammar of Dik (1997) and Deep Case approach of Fillmore (1968). These theories of grammar served as a basic source of semantic labels which are assigned to arguments and adjuncts in the present study. The labels are represented inxmlas attributes calledrolewhich belong to the elements containing information about arguments (see Section 6.5.2). The labels themselves should not be equated with semantic roles within any particular linguistic theory.
Since the present study requires bottom-up solutions, it is hard to decide on the correct set of labels in advance.The notion of theme-to-event homomorphism (Sections 2.6.4 and 4.3) is crucial in this decision. Thus, in the corpus I try to identify those arguments and adjuncts which contribute in Polish and Finnish to the notion of measuring out situation.
During the annotation process the set of basic labels was supplemented with necessary additional labels. The description below presents the full set of labels
used in the tagging process. The use of labels is not limited to any particular syn-tactic type, thus the same label can be used for both arguments and adjuncts. The relevance of particular types is discussed Chapter 7 together with other results.
Qualitative or quantitative change measured on participants
The basic participant distinction concernsAGENT– the causer of some quantita-tive or qualitaquantita-tive change – and PATIENT. The QUANTITATIVE patient is either coming to existence as in (92) or ceasing to be as in (93). TheQUALITATIVE pa-tient exists, but some quality is subject to change as in (94). FinallyMEDIA, as in (95), are not subject to change, but they have some property which can be used to measure progress in processing them.
(92) a. Po
katalogQUANTITATIVE PATIENT].
catalogue.ACC
luettelonsaQUANTITATIVE PATIENT] catalogue.GEN.POSS.3
‘After two years, TME created its first catalogue.’ (S1029) (93) a. [AlkoholiAGENT]
alcohol
liuottaa dissolve.3SG
[senQUANTITATIVE PATIENT] it.GEN
pois.
away b. [AlkoholAGENT]
Alcohol
[goQUANTITATIVE PATIENT] he.ACC
rozpu´sci.
dispersion.PFV.let.IPFV
‘Alcohol will dissolve it.’(S907) (94) a. Przygaszono
at.PFV.extinguish.IPFV.IMPS
[´swiatłaQUALITATIVE PATIENT].
light.PL.ACC
b. [ValojaQUALITATIVE PATIENT] light.PL.PAR
himmennettiin.
dim.PASS.SPST
‘The lights were dimmed.’ (S1238)
‘I have read Virginia’s suicide letter many times.’ (S1579)
In situations where the choice between agent and patient has to be made, for example, in constructions with reflexive markers, the patient label is used.
Change of location
Some situations involve the change of location or position of theMOVER, which may be caused by aPOSITIONERalong somePATH:
(96) a. [(Beatrycze)POSITIONER] Beatrix
labyrinth.PL.LOC
za´swiatówPATH].
the.beyond.GEN
b. [HänPOSITIONER] s(he)
labyrinth.PL.INE
‘She led him along the labyrinths of the beyond.’ (S1262)
The motion’s trajectory can be also specified by its starting point –SOURCE, end point –DIRECTION:
(97) a. [SuomiMOVER] Finland
muutti move.SPST
[kylistäSOURCE] village.PL.ELA
[lähiöihinDIRECTION].
suburb.PL.ILL
b. [FinlandiaMOVER]
village.PL.GEN
[na on
osiedlaDIRECTION].
housing.estate.PL.ACC
‘Finland moved from villages to suburbs.’ (S81)
Transactions such as selling, buying, giving, or change of ownership are also considered as changing the mover’s position, but the RECIPIENT label is often used instead of direction. For example, the label of direction was used in the original Finnish sentence: sale.PASS.SPST
[Pohjois-KoreaanRECIPIENT].
North-Korea.INE
‘The whole group was sold to North Korea.’ (S938)
while in the Polish translation the recipient label must be used due to the usage of the Dative (99a) form instead of prepositional phrasedo+GEN(99b):
(99) a. [BankMOVER] bank
sprzedano sell.PFV.PSTIMPS
[Korei sell.PFV.PSTIMPS
[do
‘The bank was sold to North Korea.’ (S938)
Cognitive processes
Situations concerning cognitive processes describe the relation between anEXPE
-RIENCER and a STIMULUS. As stated in Chapter 4, no unified mechanism has an application for object case marking in Finnish in such situations. Following Van Valin (1999: 374) I distinguish three types of experiencers: cognisers, per-ceivers, and emoters.
ACOGNISERis the psychological locus of cognitive experience, for example, an understander:
(100) a. [OnaCOGNISER] she
zrozumie
from.PFV.understand.IPFV
[moj ˛a
‘She will understand my poetry.’ (S1344)
APERCEIVERis the psychological locus of sensory experience, for example, an observer:
(101) a. [LewPERCEIVER] lion
spojrzał
from.PFV.watch.IPFV.PST
[na
b. [LeijonaPERCEIVER] lion
katseli
watch.FREQ.SPST
[häntäSTIMULUS] s(he).PAR
tarkkaan.
carefully
‘The lion watched him carefully.’ (S1628)
AnEMOTERis the psychological locus of emotional experience, for example, a liker:
please.IPFV.3PL
b. [MinäEMOTER]
‘I like them.’ (S1790)
A special type of cognitive process is communication. The producer of an utterance is aSPEAKER, and what the speaker says is labelled as aTOPIC: (103) a. (...)[pojatSPEAKER]
boy.PL.NOM
keskustelivat discuss.SPST.3PL
kovaan
b. (...)[chłopcySPEAKER](...)
‘(. . . ) boys discussed loudly about literature’ (S1588)
Relations
Some situations concern neither changes nor cognitive processes, but describe some properties of participants or relations between them.ZEROis used as a label for a participant who has some property, in particular being in a state or condition:
(104) a. [Erikssonin
‘Eriksson’s container is empty.’ (S913)
The physicalLOCATIONof thePOSITIONEDreferent is shown in (105) (105) a. [KirkkoPOSITIONED]
church
Warsaw.GEN-house.GEN
lähelläLOCATION] close.ADE
b. [Ko´sciółPOSITIONED] church Warsaw.ADJ.GEN
domu house.GEN
MannerheimaLOCATION] Mannerheim.GEN
‘The church is located not far from Mannerheim’s Warsaw house.’ (S262)
CONTENTandCONTAINERspecify the abstract relation of containment, own-ership, and possession:
kansanluonteen category.PL.LOC
co
‘Speaking about national feeling belongs to quite the same category as in-vestigating the national character.’ (S16)
Free labels
Some labels apply to arguments and adjuncts which may occur in different con-texts. ABENEFICIARYis an entity on whose behalf the situation takes place:
(107) a. i
‘and he offered (a cigarette) to Jerzy’(S1703) AnINSTRUMENTis the tool or means used in the situation:
(108) a. että morning.ADJ.INS
poci ˛agiemINSTRUMENT].
train.INS
‘that you came with the morning train.’ (S1437)
COMPANYis the label assigned to an additional participant in the situation:
(109) a. Sinähän you.FOC
kuulustelit
interrogate.SPST.2SG
[Palon Palo.GEN
kanssaCOMPANY] with
Halttusta,
‘All in all, you interrogated Halttunen together with Palo.’ (S1562)
MANNERdescribes in what way the situation happened:
(110) a. [bezlito´snieMANNER] without.mercy.ADV
kontynuował continue.IPFV.PST
Giugiu
REFERENCEis the label characterising a feature or quality assigned to a par-ticipant:
(111) a. Vaakunatuntijat
coat.of.arms.expert.PL.NOM
myös
‘Heraldics also acknowledge the lion as the Finnish national animal.’ (S4)
DEGREEspecifies some grade or measure characterised in the situation:
(112) a. että
‘that some features typical for forest folks are even better visible in the case of Finns than Swedes’ (S50)
b. ˙ze
‘that some features typical of forest folks are better visible in the case of the first group.’ (S50)
CIRCUMSTANCEis the factor explaining the reason or the purpose of a situa-tion: nefernefernefer.like.PL.PAR
hiuksiaan.
‘The girl shook her (prostitute) Nefernefer-like hair as an answer’ (S1416)
Quantification over referents
Elements which store information about arguments have two attributes character-ising the properties of referents (see Section 2.5.3). Firstly, I distinguish between real (not bigger than a human being or possible to modify instantly) and abstract or functional entities. This is stored as attribute the humscale. Secondly, the distinction between individual and generic referents is encoded in the attribute spectype. The latter attribute is not obligatory for abstract or functional enti-ties.