|
Abstract:
A long-standing debate in linguistics and
psycholinguistics concerns how lexical meanings are internally
represented. Lexical semanticists (e.g., [1][2][3]) claim
that lexical meanings have internal structure that may differ in
complexity across word types. In contrast, the atomistic
view claims both on theoretical and experimental grounds that
word meanings are atomic and not internally structured
[4][5][6][7][8]. In this paper, I explore this issue by
investigating how verbs of different complexity are processed and
represented.
State- and event-denoting verbs are the most
general verb types. Event-denoting verbs such as "kill"
have internal structure because they denote (and entail) a change
from an initial state to a resulting one (kill = being alive
→ being dead). In contrast, state-denoting verbs
such as "contain" lack such structure. They simply denote
facts, stable relations between their participants.
Semantic theories explain this distinction by proposing lexical
representations that differ in internal complexity: events are
composed of multiple states, whereas states are not.
This difference in the representation of multiple
vs. single states suggests that each verb type may involve
differential processing cost depending on internal complexity;
state verbs may be processed faster than event verbs.
To test this, we conducted a visual lexical
decision task (n=50; 32 verbs per category). Event and
state verbs were matched for frequency, word length and argument
structure. Imageability ratings were collected
independently and used as a covariate. Analysis of RTs
(with verb-type/imageability as factors) revealed a main effect
of verb types (p=.001 across subjects and items) but no
interaction with imageability. As predicted, state verbs
were processed faster than event ones (30 ms. difference).
We also conducted a self-paced reading study
(n=30, 45 verbs per category in sentential contexts). Verb
types were pair-wise matched by several criteria known to affect
processing time: frequency and word length; number of syntactic
frames; number of syntactic arguments; and preceding sentential
context. An analysis of RTs at the verb position revealed a
main effect of verb type (p= .01) (30 ms. difference). As
before, event verbs engendered more processing cost than state
verbs. Because argument structure was held constant, the
effects cannot be due to structure building information.
This converging evidence suggests that event and
state verbs are differentially processed and represented.
Semantic properties of each type modulate lexical access and
integration. This is consistent with theories that
postulate differences in verb representational complexity and
challenges the Fodorian unstructured approach to the
representation of word meaning.
References
[1] Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and
Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht.
[2] Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference,
temporal constitution and quantification in event
semantics. In Bartsch et al., Semantics and Contextual
Expressions. Foris.
[3] Verkuyl, H. (1989). Aspectual classes
and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12,
39-94.
[4] Fodor, J. A. (1970). Three reasons for
not deriving "kill" from "cause to die". Linguistic
Inquiry, 1.4, 429-438.
[5] Fodor, J. D., Fodor, J. A., & Garrett, M.
(1975). The psychological unreality of semantic
representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 6.4, 515-535.
[6] Fodor, J. A., & Lepore, E. (1998).
The emptiness of the lexicon: Reflections on J. Pustejovsky's
"The Generative Lexicon". Linguistic Inquiry, 29(2).
[7] Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. F., Walker, E. C.
T., & Parkes C. H. (1980). Against definitions.
Cognition, 8, 263-367.
[8] Rainer, K., & Duffy, S. (1986).
Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word
frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory
& Cognition, 14(3).
|
