A C T A U N I V E R S I T Ä T I S L O D Z I E N S I S FO LIA LIN G U IST IC A 36, 1997
Iwona W itczak-Plisiecka
S E L E C T E D S E M A N T IC IS S U E S C O N C E R N IN G V ER B S O F S P E A K IN G
1. IN TRO D U C TIO N
T h e p resent p ap e r discusses the n o tio n s concerning lexical m eaning. T h e topics include various m eth o d s o f the form alisatio n o f lexical m eaning, lexical and sense relations w ithin the d om ain o f the verbs o f speaking. It also aim s to p re sen t som e aspects o f th e recent sem an tic th eo ries relevan t to the explan atio n o f the m eanin g o f verbal concepts and has been based on a prelim inary research do n e w ith reference to a c u rren t lexicographic project, a Bilingual English-Polish T h esau ru s [BIT] (an on-line d a ta base), which is being prepared in the In stitu te o f English Studies, U niversity o f Ł ódź.
N a tu rally , there are m an y appro ach es to the pro blem o f the ex p lan atio n o f the m eaning o f lexemes and they differ greatly w ithin various linguistic th eo rie s, e.g. th e tru th -c o n d itio n a l a p p ro a c h , cognitive sem an tics, th e behaviourist approach, etc V arious theories concerning the basic philosophical questions o f sym bol use, e.g. the reference th eory o f m eaning, the use th eo ry , the im age theory, etc., have been discussed extensively in the specifically linguistic lite ratu re [cf. L y o n s 1968: 400f.; 1977: 95f.; L e e c h 1981; F o d o r 1977: 9f; C h i e r c h i a and M c C o n n e l l - G i n e t 1990; J a c k c n d o f f 1990].
F ollow ing d e S a u s s u r e ’ s [ 1 9 1 6 (1959)] d ich otom y, th e m ean in g o f any item o f v ocabulary is usually described in term s o f signification and m ed iatin g concepts, w hich can be traced back to th e tra d itio n a l A risto telian distin ctio n betw een ‘m a tte r’ and ‘fo rm ’. It is th e concept o r ‘sense’ th a t lexical sem antics attem p ts to explain. F o r the pu rp o ses o f a sem antic d ictio n ary , it is lexemes - ab stra ct underlying elem ents, and n o t w o rd s w ith
th eir m ultiplicity o f form s, w hich arc under investigation. T h is seems to m eet the needs o f represen ting the m ental lexicon as it ap p ears th a t lexemes are convenient idealisations an d correspon d to item s con tained in th e stru c tu re o f th e lexicon [cf. C r u s e 1986]. It seems im p o rta n t to present b o th ‘in tern a l’, i.e. co nceptual elem ents o f m ean in g and th e ‘ex te rn a l’, netw o rk o rg a n isa tio n o f the lexicon.
Even having accepted th a t there is n o reason to suppose th a t different gram m atical categories should d em o n strate different m en tal rep resen tatio n s [cf. J а с к e n d o f f 1983], it goes w ithout saying th a t verbs are the catego ry co n stitu tin g ‘pivotal elem ents’ - the core o f a sentence. T hey suggest a scene/fram e o f an event [cf. F i l l m o r e 1971 a/b, 1977a/b] and show great sem antic sensitivity to context. In Polish verbs seem to resist fo r m alisatio n still m ore because o f their richness o f affixation processes.
In the analysis o f verbal concepts which is to be adopted for lexicographic purpo ses, it m ay prove w orthw hile to com pile findings o f various linguistic theories to provide as com plete an in terp re tatio n o f the m ean in g o f the analysed senses as possible.
2. LEX ICA L AND SE N SE RELA TIO N S W ITH IN T H E FIELD O F T H E VERBS O F SPEAKING
W ith in th e stru c tu ra list tra d itio n th e v o c a b u la ry o f a lan g u ag e is recognised as a system or a netw ork o f in terd ep en d en t elem ents. It is a p p a re n t th a t lexemes enter m an y varied relation s w ith o ne an o th er. In the re la tio n a l, in a sense ‘ex tern al’ stru ctu re o f the lexicon, lexemes are treated as sep arate entities, the entries in the m en tal lexicon. R ep re sen tatio n s o f this stru ctu re attem p ts to discover and present o r m odel their configurations. R elatio n al analysis correlates to som e extent w ith co m p o n en tial analysis, an d som e relatio n s can be ap p ro ach ed as features as well. In the follow ing sections selected sense and lexical relations will be presented.
2.1. Polysemy and Homonymy
A m a jo r problem posed by the n otions o f polysem y an d h o m o n y m y is to disting uish betw een several senses o f the sam e lexical item an d different lexical item s which show the sam e form . A w ord is defined as polysemous w hen it has several m eanings, while sem antically u n related lexemes which have the sam e form are called homonyms.
T h e problem o f the recognition o f polysem y and hom o ny m y does n o t m anifest itself so d ram atically if the field ap p ro ach is ad o p ted fo r the analysis, w ithin w hich we tend to trea t lexemes as different w ords, th erefo re av o id in g th e p ro b lem o f th e id en tificatio n o f th e re la tio n th a t h o ld s betw een them , w hich does n o t o f course answ er theoretical problem s.
V erbs in English are generally recognised as being m o re polysem ous th a n n o u n s and o th er categories. T he sam e seems to apply to P olish verbs. It has been claim ed th a t verbs in English have o n average 2. 11 senses, w hereas the average English n o u n has 1.74 senses [ F e l l b a u m 1990: 43]. It also ap p ears th a t verbs in general show g reater m u tab ility o f m eaning w hich changes depending o n the context. F u th e rm o re, a n u m b er o f verbs can be depleted, i.e. their m eaning can only be determ ined in p artic u la r contexts. In such cases nearly all relevant in fo rm atio n w hich concerns the m ean in g is carried by the context. T he m o st frequently used verbs, those w hich belong to the core vocabulary (e.g. be, have, run, set, etc.) show a great variety o f m eaning. T o exemplify, for the purposes o f the present analysis, three senses have been identified for stum ble, i.e. stum ble' - while w alking (Pol. p o tk n ąć się, w paść na), stum ble" - descriptive o f th e m a n n e r o f w alking (Pol. iść nierów no, p o ty kając się) and stum ble'” - while speaking (Pol. p o tk n ą ć się n a słowie, ją k a ć /z a ją k n ą ć się).
2.2. Hyponymy
In brief, hyponym y is the relatio n o f inclusion o r en taiim ent betw een a m o re specific (subord in ate) an d a m o re general (su p ero rd in ate) lexeme. It d em o n strates a unilateral transitive im plication and is best seen betw een no u n s, w here its relatively sim ple stru ctu re can be rendered in a fram e ‘A n X is (a kind of) Y \ In logic this relatio n can be described as the u n ilateral im plication, i.e. А В (В im plies A), w here В is higher in the tax o n o m y th a n A , bu t it is n o t the case th a t В A. T h e higher term in the tax o n o m y is usually called a headword, cover word, supcrordinate, hyperonym o r archilexemc. H yponym y involves the n o tio n o f entaiiment w hich is dealt w ith in the fu rth e r sections. A lth o u g it seems to be relatively sim ple betw een n o u n s an d in taxonom ies o f n a tu ra l kinds, hyp on ym y re la tio n is by no m ean s sim ple betw een verbs. T h e use o f a fram e to d e m o n stra te en taiim en t betw een n ouns does n o t seem ap p ro p ria te w hen app lied to verbs, e.g. ‘stam m ering is talking' o r ‘m um bling is talking' seem to be at least aw kw ard [cf. F e l l b a u m 1990]. R esearch in to verbal h y po ny m y has show n th a t this stru ctu re involves various kinds o f sem antic ela b o ra tio n s across different dim ensions o f m eaning, the lexicalisation itself o ften being
languagc-specific. F o r exam ple, T aim y (1985) in his analysis o f the verbs o f m o tio n , presents them as a co nflatio n o f ''move' and features o f ‘m a n n e r’ and ‘cau se’.
W ith regard to the verbs o f speaking, It seems m o re con venient to a p p ro a c h them in term s o f troponymy [cf. F e l l b a u m 1990] ra th e r th an trad itio n al hyponym y. V erbs in general seem to d em o n strate a ra th e r ‘b u sh y ’ structure in their hierarchies, i.e. some levels o r strata o f sem antic conceptuali sation are lexicalised m uch m ore richly than others. M oreover, some levels lack a hyperonym o r any ‘prim e’ lexeme [cf. C r u s e 1986 for verbs o f m ovem ent] an d seem to be linked ra th e r by a prim e concept o r a salient feature.
O ne basic w ord has been identified as m ost general fo r th e English verbs o f speaking, i.e. say. It ap p ears th a t abo ve the level o f say there are no hypo nym s or hyperonym s. T h e verb has also been claim ed to exem plify a sem antic prim itive [cf. W i e r z b i c k a 1972; 1987] and p ro b a b ly a lexical universal [ V e r s c h u e r e n 1987]. W ith respect to Polish, mówić and powiedzieć seem to be the m o st general.
2.3. Troponymy and Entailment
E n tailm en t is a unilateral im plication, close to th e n o tio n o f hyponym y. In fact th e concept o f entailm en t can also explain the re la tio n o f synonym y - a bilateral im plication, an d antonym y, being the converse o f en tailm en t [cf. K e m p s o n 1977]. E n tailm en t has been show n to be especially suitable fo r the analysis o f verbs and correspon d to a considerable extent to the p a rt - w hole relation o f mcronymy found betw een n o u n s [F e 11 b a u m
1990]. H ow ever, w ith respect to verbs, the p art-w h o le relatio n s seem to be based o n the tem poral inclusion o r the lack o f such an inclusion. F u rth e r aspects o f m ean in g analysed w ithin the fram ew ork o f en tailm en t involve troponymy, presupposition, an d th e causal re la tio n . All these k in d s o f entailm ent are related in T ab . 1 below [adopted from F e l 1 b a u m 1990: 57].
T h e nam e tro p o n y m y has been coined on the basis o f th e G reek term ttopos w hich d enotes ‘m a n n e r’ o r ‘fa sh io n ’. T h u s, tro p o n y m y , the m a n n e r re latio n , can be seen as a special kind o f entailm en t parallel to mcronymy, i.e. a part-w h o le relation . T ro p o n y m y is to be u n d ersto o d as a re latio n betw een pairs w hich are always tem p o rally со -extensive and w hose m em b ers are related to each o th e r by entailm ent. T he term ‘m a n n e r’ is u n d e rsto o d in a b ro a d sense so as to cover variety o f sem antic dim ensions w hich m ay them selves differ across given co n cep tu al fields o f verbs. In th e field o f th e verbs o f speaking it m ay evolve such elem ents as ‘in te n tio n ’ o r ‘m o tiv a tio n ’, e.g. confess, prom ise o r literally ‘m a n n e r’, e.g. lisp, m utter. In ad d itio n ,
w ithin the field o f com m u nication and especially in the field o f the verbs o f sp eak in g , m an y lexem es can be classified as h y p o n y m s, o r ra th e r tro p o n y m s, o f basic speech act verbs. T h u s, we can talk a b o u t a ‘T H A N K ’ g ro u p or ‘P R O M IS E ’ g ro u p w here the verbs to prom ise and to thank ind icate the focal conceptual area o f the field. H ow ever, we ca n hard ly find a hyperony m different from som e general term supplem ented w ith an adverb o r adjective o f m an n er for verbs related to e.g. ‘IN D IS T IN C T ’ speech or ‘IN F O R M A L ’, ‘ID L E ’ speech.
T a b l e 1
F o u r kinds o f entaiim ent relations am ong verbs
ENTA I LM EN T + T E M PO R A L IN C LU SIO N - T EM PO R A L IN C LU SIO N -I- T R O PO N Y M Y (co-extensiveness) - TR O PO N Y M Y (proper inclusion) B A C K G R O U N D
PR ESU PPO SITIO N CAU SE
limp - walk lisp - talk snore - sleep buy - pay succeed - try untie - tie raise - rise give - have
It is w o rth n o tin g th a t the causal relatio n in general can be encodede a t different levels o f sem antic stru ctu re o f a language. It can be lexicalised, as in the exam ples above, b u t it can also be realised in p erip h rastic expressions involving elem ents such as 'cause to/m a ke/let/h ave/g et to’, etc., o r can be in h eren t in lexemes, i.e. can be present as an intern al con cep tu al elem ent o f a lexem e’s m eaning, e.g. prom ise seems to entail th e elem ent o f 'cause to believe that...'. V erbs o f speaking seldom reflect th e causal re la tio n by m orp h o lo g ical d erivation. In stead , a great n u m b er o f the verbs in question arc inherently causative, which can be reflected in their com ponential analysis. T h e causative elem ent o f th eir m eaning is often an ela b o ra tio n o f n o tio n s such as ‘in te n tio n ’ or ‘volitio n ’ (cf. prom ise above). T h is, how ever, relates to the co m p o n en tial analysis ra th e r th a n the re la tio n a l one.
2.4. Synonymy
S ynonym ous relations are relatio ns o f th e ‘sam eness’ o f m eaning . T hey can be seen as special ceses o f bilateral o r sym m etrical hypo nym y or bilateral im plication. A lth o u g h there is no to tal synonym y w ith in the lexicon, it is useful to analyse n ear synonym s.
W ith respect to verbs, it has been suggested th a t English is especially rich in synonym s fo r historical reasons [ I * a i m e r 1981; F e l l b a u m 1990]. A n u m b er o f English verbal concepts are represented by b o th A nglo-S axon an d G re co -L a tin a te (o r F ren ch ) w ords, e.g.:
(1) end - term in ate hide - conceal
In general, G re co -L a tin a te w ords are m o re form al. F u rth e rm o re , m o st o ften only on e m em ber o f such synonym ous pairs tends to be a p p ro p ria te in a given context. Som e o f synonym ous expressions, dyscriptive synonym s, seem to reveal th eir internal structure. In the exam ple (2)
(2) a. m um ble = ‘talk indistinctly’ b. gibber = ‘talk foolishly’
th e verbs m um ble an d gibber in their synonym ous expressions show th a t they are m a n n e r ela b o ra tio n s o f a m o re basic verb. In m u ch th e sam e m a n n e r, deadjectival verbs seem to encapsulate som e in tern al p ro p e rty such as a chan ge-of-state concept, e.g. (3):
(3) widen = ‘m ake/becom e w ide’
T o som e extent, synonym y w ithin the verbs o f speaking depends on the level o f analysis, i.e. o n the subjective decision as to ho w precise and detailed the analysis is to be. In general, verbs as in (4) below can be claim ed synonym ous:
(4) a. to tell = to reveal b. to request = to d em and c. to speak = to talk d. to order = to com m and
H ow ever, a co n tex t can often be found in w hich the pairs as above co u ld s ta n d in o p p o sitio n , o r one elem ent o f a p a ir could sta n d in o p p o sitio n , o r one elem ent o f a p air could be presented as a hypcronym o f the o ther.
W ithin the field o f the verbs o f speaking it ap p e ars th a t synon ym o us stru ctu re s differ across various sem antic sub-fields. F o r exam ple, descriptive o r ‘m an n er-o f-sp eech ’ verbs d o n o t produce as m an y lexemes perceived as syno nym ous as e.g. ‘speech act v erbs’.
2.5. Antonymy
T h e relatio n o f an to n y m y generally refers to all instances o f sem antic oppositness. T here are three m ost frequently enum erated types o f anto ny m ou s relations. T hese are: (1) com p lem entary pairs, (2) g radab le an to n y m s, and (3) relatio n al opposites.
W ithin the d o m ain o f th e verbs o f speaking various types o f an to n y m y ca n be fo u n d . In P olish m o st o f th e verbs in the d o m a in co u ld be co n trad icted by a ‘n o n -a c tio n ’ verb milczeć (‘to be silent’) w hich is n o t lexicalised in English. In ad d itio n , the English say, widely recognised as the m o st general and basic lexeme in the field, m ay in som e co n tex t be co n tra ste d w ith o thers lexemes from the field, e.g. sing, ask, deny, etc. In each case the c o n tra st is based on the conceptual differences alo ng v ario us dim ensions o f the m eaning o f say, e.g. H e d id n ’tsay that, he asked. I he sam e p h en om en on can be observed in Polish.
O n a deeper level o f analysis, pairs such as persuade and dissuade can be fo u n d , alth o u g h som e o f the verbs o f speaking seem to lack a close oppo site lexeme, e.g. promise.
T h ere are a n u m b er o f relational opposites, e.g. ask an d reply o r answer, w hich seem to presuppose one an o th e r w ithin a tem p o ral re la tio n [cf. P a l m e r 1981: 99]. Som e speech act verbs in general suggest a m o re com plex p a tte rn , e.g. accept and refuse b o th involve offer, b u t also vario u s o th e r dim ensions.
Som e an to n y m o u s lexemes show m orp h o lo g ical m ark ers, e.g. approve vs. disapprove, persuade vs. dissuade.
A n u m b er o f an to n y m o u s pairs have the sam e su p ero rd in ate catego ry o r a hy peronym , being usually co -troponym s, i.e. elab o ratio n s oi m an n er, o f som e higher in the hierarchy term . T hey often seem to share som e entailed elem ents as well, e.g. b o th persuade and dissuade ap p e ar to entail concepts such as 'say' and 'try'.
2.6. Other Types o f Lexical and Semantic Relations
Lexical and sense relations discussed above d em o n strate fam iliar relatio ns w hich are widely recognised am o n g users o f a language an d often present in reference m aterials and sem antic literature. H ow ever, it is possible to identify o th er lexical and sem antic relation s w hich d o n o t apply as widely th ro u g h o u t the lexicon and ap p e ar to be less explicit.
2.6.1. Phoncstasia
P h o n estasia belongs to u nconven tio nal lexical and sense relatio n s w hich reflect b o th sim ilarities in form and m eaning o f lexical item s. A lth o u g h relations such as pho n estasia are seldom indicated in the stru c tu re ol
D '
eri
reference m aterials, i.e. in a dictio n ary o r a th esau ru s, they seem to be im p o rta n t b o th fo r th eoretical and practical p urposes. W hen ap p ro ach e d w ithin a th eoretical fram ew ork, they ap p aren tly reveal in fo rm atio n a b o u t the co m p o n en ts o f the lexem e’s m eaning. In the p ractical a p p ro a c h , they seem n o t only to add to o u r know ledge o f the lexem e’s p ro p erties, b u t also help the m em o risatio n o f concepts, b o th o f th eir form al and sem antic elem ents. T h is becom es especially im p o rta n t in co n trastiv e analysis o r in th e process o f acquiring a foreign language.
T h ere are various sets o f p honestatic w ords in English [cf. A l l e n 1986: 248f.]. A m ong others, there is a group related to ‘light effects’, e.g. glitter, glim m er, glisten etc., which shows sim ilarities in the initial p a rts o f the g ro u p ’s lexemes. A lso, the final elem ent -itter, as in chitter, glitter, etc., pro vides in fo rm atio n a b o u t im plied ‘bittiness’, untidiness, o r im perfection o f th e actio n described by the verb. Sim ilarly, w ithin the d o m ain o f the verbs o f speaking, item s such as chatter, clatter, natter, patter, seem to p rovide the in fo rm atio n a b o u t iterativcness o f th e action referred to . O th er p h o n estatic p roperties relevant for the analysis o f the verbs o f speaking are exem plified by the lexemes which signify dull, heavy o r u ntidy , here also ind istinct, action , e.g. m um ble, stumble, grumble. T h e final elem ent o f these lexemes is also present in w ords belonging to o th e r sem antic d om ain s w hich, how ever, share th eir ‘heaviness’ co m p o n en t o f m eaning , e.g. bumble, fu m b le , humble, rumble, etc.
In conclusion, no form al w ay o f presenting p h o n estasia as a form al re la tio n has as yet been suggested. N onetheless, th e re la tio n being p artly fo rm al and p artly based on th e m eaning pro perties o f the lexemes in q u estio n seems to add to o u r know ledge o f n atu ra l language an d its stru ctu re. As such, it is relevent b o th to lexicography an d (co ntrastiv e) lexical sem antics. I t is ap p a re n t from the lim ited analysis o f selected verbs o f speaking th a t there are co rrelatio n s betw een p h o n estatic p ro p erties and m ean in g . P h o n e sta tic w ords sh are aspects o f b o th th e ir p h o n e tic an d w ritten form and som e p arts o f th eir inherent pro p erties as can be seen in th eir co m p o n en tial analysis.
2.6.2. Morphological Relations or ‘Morphostasia’
T h ere are sets o f verbs in Polish which seem to be on the interface o f co m p o u n d s an d m orp h o lo g ical derivations. T hese verbs could be seen as co m b in atio n s o f a prefix and a single general verb, usually the m o st n eu tra l o r one o f the m o st n eu tral in its sem antic d o m ain . Because b o th prefixes an d general basic lexemes o f the type o f iść, jechać (‘g o ’), pa trzeć (‘lo o k ’),
widzieć (‘see’), robić (‘d o ’) arc m eaningful elem ents, such verbs could be analysed w ithin b o th sem antic and m o rp h o -sy n tactic classifications (for the m o v em en t verbs analysed in relatio n to aspect, see P i s a r s k i 1990).
A do m ain can be constructed on the basis o f differen t verbs o f speaking w hich show a com plex stru ctu re o f tw o elem ents, i.e. a basic, co re, general term related to ‘speech’, e.g. mówić, powiedzieć (tw o c o n te rp a rts o f the E nglish say and tell) and a prefix. In fact, in m an y cases it is possible to deduce th e m ean in g o f the lexeme, o r a t least a p a rt o f it, from b o th its constituent elements which are m eaningful m orphological units. T h e m eanings o f such P olish verbs m ost often have b o th one-w ord and ‘a co re verb
+ p re p o sitio n ’ c o u n te rp a rts in English, e.g. (5) opowiedzieć - narrate, tell (about)
It ap p ears th a t the verbs o f speaking in P olish can tak e m o st, if n o t all, existing verbal prefixes, th u s co nstituting a vast field o f ‘speech’ verbs w hich co n tain a core presum ably universal related concept, cf. (6) below. T h e com b in atio n s o f a prefix and the sym bol {0} indicate lexical gaps.
(6) a. dom ów ić conclude dopow iedzieć add (up)
add up
b. przym ów ić ch a t up przypow iedzieć tell
clam o u r for... (arch.) an n o u n ce c. wym ówić pron o u n ce, u tte r
scold...
wypowiedzieć utter, speak out challenge d. zam ów ić b o o k , o rd e r
play m agic
zapow iedzieć an n o u n ce forecast e. przem ów ić speak, lecture
give a talk
przepow iedzieć foresee, tell (fu ture)
f. podm ów ić rebel podpow iedzieć p ro m p t (as in
th eatre) g- odm ów ić refuse, discourage odpow iedzieć answ er, reply
p a tte r
{w + 0}
refer, react h. w m ów ić p ersuade, convince
i. nam ów ić p ersuade {na + 0}
j- zm ówić conspire, plot {z + 0}
tell (a prayer)
gossip, tell (a ro u n d ) k. rozm ów ić to have a w ord w ith rozpow iedzieć
1. um ów ić to m ake an appointm ent{u + 0} to m a k e an agreem ent
{po + 0} m . podm ów ić m align, libel, ch at
n. obm ów ić m align, gossip {o 4- 0}
o. om ów ić discuss opow iedzieć tell
opow iedzieć się in tro d u ce oneself
T h e exem ples as above d o n o t d e m o n strate a un ifo rm p a tte rn . Som e o f th e Polish prefixes are free m orphem es, e.g. na (Eng. ‘o n ’ as in ‘o n the ta b le ’), p o d (‘u n d e r’, ‘below ’) do (‘to w ard s’, ‘t o ’, ‘up t o ’), p rzy (‘n e a r’, ‘a r o u n d ’) etc. O thers, e.g. roz-, ob-, wy-, are b o un d m orp h em es which ca n n o t a p p e a r on th eir own. T hey arc highly polysem ous and show g reat sensitivity to context. T herefore, we c a n n o t expect any co m plete sem antic co rrespondence betw een lexemes constructed w ith the use o f th e sam e prefix. Som e co m p o u n d s, if they are to be ap p ro ach ed as co m p o u n d s at all, show m o re fossilised structures and opaqueness in their m ean in gs. H ow ev er, th e ex p la n a tio n o f th e m ean in g o f th e prefixes m a y p ro v e valuable b o th fo r the theoretical and practical purposes. A lot o f P olish lexemes, e.g. those w ith do-, d em o n strate tran sp aren cy o f m ean in g a lth o u g they b elong to different sem antic dom ains, cf. domówić (‘d o ’ + say/tell), dojechać (‘d o ’ -I- go), etc. O thers prefixes also p rov id e insights in to th e m eanings o f related verbs.
It has been suggested th a t im age-schcm ata could prov id e a p p ro p ria te m ean s fo r such a description. A sam ple o f graphic re p resen tatio n s is
presented in (7) below: (7) a. d o - -»
b. przy- -» I c. wy- + Ф »
It is possible to find sets o f verbs in English w hich a p p e a r to share the features which we found in Polish, e.g. degrade, regrade, upgrade, downgrade etc. H ow ever, Polish sets seem to p ro d u c e a m o re reg u lar p a tte rn th ro u g h o u t the' lexicon th an the ap p a ren tly less fossilised, m o re tra n sp a re n t and less com m on, English sets. It is argu able w hether such relatio n s being o n the interface o f form and m ean in g, can and should be form alised o r em ployed in reference m aterials. Still, they allow fo r gaining access to fu rth e r facets o f a lexem e’s m eaning and use. A s such are re la v an t fo r the analysis.
3. T H E FO RM A LISA TIO N O F LEXICAL M EA NIN G
3.1. Componcntial analysis and semantic primes
A m o n g various attem p ts to form alise m ean ing , componential analysis seem s to be one o f th e m o st p o p u la r and co n tro v ertial. T h e adventages and d isad v an tag es o f the ap p ro ach has been well aired in the lite ra tu re [cf.
K a t z 1972; J a c k e n d o f f 1972, 1983; K e m p s o n 1977; L e e c h 1981; L y o n s 1977; N i l s e n 1975; B i e r w i s h 1970].
In sh o rt, in relation to verb it seems m ore efficient to in terp ret m ean in g in term s o f prototypical an d expected, o r in C r u s e ’ s [1980] w ords ‘ca n o n ical’ vs. ‘n o n -can o n ical’ features ra th e r th a n necessary an d sufficient ones. It is now a p p a re n t th a t features ascribcd to lexemes, in o th e r w ords the com p o n en ts o f th eir m eaning, d o n o t d em o n strate equal values. Som e o f the features are m o re crucial and necessary th a n o th ers an d som e concepts m ay be vague. T h e idea correlates w ith psychological findings involving ‘g estalt’ perception o f basic objects [cf. L a k o f f 1977; J a c k e n - d o f f 1983] and the n o tio n o f ‘fam ily resem blance’ present in th e p ro to ty p e approach suggested by E leanor R o s c h [1973, 1975, 1977] and her followers.
F o r som e verbs, decom position in term s o f a definitional method into semantic primes has been suggested. T h e m ost kn ow n an d also co n tro v ertial exam ple has been provided by M cC aw ley’s analysis o f kill in to ‘C A U S E T O B E C O M E N O T A L IV E ’. It goes w ith o u t saying th a t any d ecom position is necessarily depen d en t on the subjective ju dg em en ts o f its a u th o r as to the atom icity o f concepts. A n interesting, alth o u g h co n tro v e rtial, exam ple o f the analysis o f the lexicon into a hierarchical and relation al stru ctu re reduced to a few hypothetically basic elem ents, and guided by the dynam ic ‘cause-effect’ process, has been presented by B u r g e r [1984] in his “ W or- dtree".
A n altern ativ e m odel o f sem antic rep resen tatio n o f m ean ing related to com p o n en tial analysis has been suggested by A n n a W i e r z b i c k a [1972, 1980, 1987] in the form o f lingua mentalis o r reductive paraphrase. R e p resen tatio n s arc based o n a m inim al set o f 15 ‘sem antic p rim itiv es’ or ‘p rim e s’, i.e. elem entary co n c ep tu al b uilding blocks. T h is set includes lexemes such as I, you, to, som ething, this, want etc. W ithin this ap p ro ach m o re com plex concepts are p o rtray ed in term s o f a m o re com plex set o f sim ple sentences as in the exam ple below, qu o ted after W i e r z b i c k a [1987: 205]:
(8) P R O M IS E : I k now th a t you w ant m e to do A I k now th a ty o u th in k I m ay n o t d o it
I w an t to d o it because you w ant m e to d o it I say: I will d o it
I w ant us to think th a t if I d o n ’t di it, people will n o t believe an ything th a t I say I will d o
I say this, in this way, because I w ant to cause y ou to be able to th in k th a t
I have to d o it.
In o rd e r to avoid circularity and artificiality in definitions a n u m b e r o f cognitive linguists argue for n o t using a n a tu ra l language to represent
lexical m eaning. W ithin this ap p ro ach n o n -p ro p o sitio n al schcm atic rep resen tatio n s are suggested to ‘illu stra te’ ra th e r th an ‘describe’ m eaning. Exam ples o f im age schem atic represen tatio n s for verbal prefixes in P olish h ave been presented in section 2.6.2.
2.2. Semantic roles
T h e theory o f sem antic roles seems to be especially efficient in the ex p lan a tio n o f the m eaning o f verbal concepts. Sem antic roles are also kn o w n as participant roles o r thcmatic relations w ithin frame an d case theory. T hey are said to represent ‘deep cases’ w hich are ascribed to argum ents in a sentence an d , w ithin the tra d itio n a l ap p ro ach , w ere to be universal [cf. F i l l m o r e 1968]. However, in the alternative m o d em app roach , as represented by D ow ty and L adusaw [cf. L a d u s a w 1988; D o w t y 1991] sem antic roles are seen as com binatio ns o f certain entailm ents. It has also been suggested th a t roles are n o t discrete categories a t all, b u t are b e tte r seen in term s o f a p ro to ty p e o r a ‘fam ily resem blance’ ap p ro ach e as introd uced by R o s c h [1975] and o th er cognitive linguists and p sy ch o logists. T h e best way ou t o f the problem and th e one efficient fo r the p ractical purposes is to identify a limited set o f sem antic roles and featu res, m o st relevant for the description o f verbal senses, and co nstruct lexicographic analysis based on such a set. In th a t way th e definitio ns w ould be b o th inform ative enough fo r the user and, hopefully, preserve th eir th eoretical values.
It has been show n th a t m o st o f the C O M M U N IC A T IO N verbs in English, such as explain o r tell [cf. N i l s e n 1975: 104], show the fram e as in (9) below.
(9) tell [_A gent, Experiencer, O bject, Instrum ent]
w hich can be realized in sentences such as (10a), below, w hich h as been given fu rth e r feature specification in (10c):
(10) a. Jo h n told M ary to do th e dishes. b. A gent E xperiencer O bject [Instrum ent] c. S ource G o a l [ + A b stract] vocal tract
In such cases O bject usually relates to th e co n ten t o f w h at has been co m m unicated. T his fram e shows clear co rrelatio n s w ith P olish fram es for equ iv alent verbs, e. g. as in (11) where E xperiencer is treated as an o p tio n al elem ent an d the fram e itself depends on th e p a rtic u la r sense in w hich the verb is used (here: ‘sa y something')-.
(11) pow iedziećIm ów ić [_A (E ) О I] ( = tell, say)
Sim ilar correspondence is p resent in th e case o f o n e-arg u m en t univalent verbs, such as the expression ‘/o be loquacious’ o r 'to be ta lk a tiv e ’, as in (12) below , the g ro u p o f w hich includes all th e in stru m en tal sounds as well [cf. N i l s e n 1975: 104].
(12) a. Jo h n is talkative/lo quacious b. [_0]
T h e parallel Polish sentence and fram e would be as in (13): (13) a. Ja n jest m ałom ów ny,
b. ‘Jo h n is ‘n o t-ta lk a tiv e ’
H a v in g accepted th a t, we m ay proceed and try to give m o re in fo rm atio n a b o u t the verbs th a n the fram es provide. T h u s, we can either su pplem ent th e case labels w ith the in fo rm atio n involving sem antic features (such as H u m a n , A b stra ct, C oncrete etc., as discussed above) o r w ith o th e r types o f in fo rm atio n inherent in lexical item s. F o r the C O M M U N IC A T IO N verbs, and especially the verbs o f speaking, in fo rm atio n ab o u t p resup position carried by verbs an d illocutionary force corresp o n d in g to w hat h as been m a d e explicit by the use o f the verb in qu estio n seem to be th e m o st relevant notio ns.
T h u s, fo r each verb o f speaking A gent is to be specified as [ + H U M A N ] w ith som e ad d itio n al in fo rm atio n w hich concerns th e ro le’s o th er p ro p erties. F o r exam ple, for prom ise, A gent is also “ usually 1” which m ean s th a t the role characteristically associated w ith th e verbal sense is alw ays ‘h u m a n ’ an d usually singular as opposed to e.g. th e A gent o f pledge which is m o st com m only collective. A gent alw ays co n tain s the fe atu re [+ 11 U M A N ] and denotes a m em ber o f th e class o f hom o loquens. All the verbs o f speaking d o n o t allow a su bject/A gen t w bo w ould be related to h u m an beings b u t either p erm anen tly or occasionally u nab le to speak [cf. also K o z a r z e w s k a 1991 on P olish data]. T h u s a sentence as in (14)
(14) *The babies discussed and ch attered.
is at least aw kw ard, while in P olish a sym m etrical sentence: (15) *N iem ow lęta gawędziły.
(babies ch attered) T h e babies chattered. o r o th e r as in (16): (16) *N iem y rozpraw iał.
(the du m b discussed/argued) T h e d u m b argued...
2.3. Spech A ct Verbs
T h e n o tio n o f ‘illocution ary force’, tak en from th e th eo ry o f speech acts, seems to be crucial to the exp lan atio n o f th e m ean in g o f a large su b -g ro u p o f the v o cabulary o f b o th Polish and English.
Speech act verbs, e.g. ask, promise, deny, sentence, are crucial in how people perceive an d organise h u m an interaction. T h e acts o f speech are b o th perform ed and referred to. A lthough classifications o f speech acts and speech act verbs [cf. A u s t i n 1962; S e a r l e 1969, 1976, 1979] are n o t equivalent, they are o ftenare convenient labels for the sem antic sub-field w ithin th e field o f th e verbs o f speaking. T here are also correlations between th e com plem ent co n stru c tio n o f the em bedded clause and the kind o f illo cu tio nary act d en o ted by the verbs o f speaking [cf. L e h r e r 1989]. F o r exam ple, that- clauses in English are associated w ith know ledge and assertions, to correlates w ith directives, and fo r - to co n stru ctio n s are found w ith weak directives (e.g. plead). In contrast, verbs denotin g m an n er o f speaking, m ean s o f co m m u nica
ting, etc., em bed several or all com plem ent types. T h ere seem to be fu rth e r regularities. F o r exam ple, a sub-class o f assertives th a t disallow th at-co m ple- m en ts arc verbs o f judg em en ts, e.g. acclaim, admonish, credit. T hese verbs seem to presuppose or im ply a fact or event and assert a judgem ent. F u rth e r evidence fo r the co rrelatio n o f syntax and sem antics, th erefo re sem antic classification, is provided by the use o f wAe/Aer-constructions. Such co n stru c tions seem to be allow ed only if the m eaning o f the verb itself has the co m p o n en t o f an alternative o r som e sort o f choice [cf. L e h r e r 1989: 8]. It seems th a t speech act classifications co rrelate w ith sem antics and syntax o f verbs via sem antic co m p o n en ts shared by b o th related speech acts catego ry and verbs. C onsidering the correlation o f /o-constructions w ith directives, one could explain it on the basis o f the association o f to w ith ‘w a n tin g ’, given th a t a directive is realized by an expression in w hich the A gent o r the speaker ‘w a n ts’ the E xperiencer/addressee to perform som e action. T h e p o in t seems to be reinforced by the syntactic beh av io u r o f a sm all sub-set o f directives w hich express ‘negative’ concepts an d d o n o t allow /o-con struc- tio n s, e.g. fo rb id , prohibit, dissuade, cancel. Such co rrelatio n s as discussed ab o v e could be m o st n atu rally ap p ro ach ed w ithin th e fram ew ork o f valen- cy-analysis, in o th e r w ords: in relatio n to a p o ten tial th a t a w o rd possesses fo r com bining w ith o th er w ords b o th syntactically and sem antically. T h is problem involves th e d o m ain o f sem antic roles, discussed in th e first p a rt o f the p resent chap ter.
T h u s, the in fo rm atio n a b o u t the type o f speech acts n a tu ra lly associated w ith the verb in q uestion , o r in o th er w ords, th e v erb ’s illo cu tio n ary p o te n tia l, can p rovide h ints a b o u t this verb syntactic beh av iou r.
W ithin th e speech act verbs, i.e. verbs related to speech acts, we can distinguish implicit and explicit perform atives, the form er n o t n orm ally being u ttered while p erform ing the act (e.g. boast).
In ad d itio n , o th er n o tio n s norm ally associated w ith p ragm atics and discourse analysis m ay provide insights into the n atu re o f speech acts and speech act verbs. It has been suggested th a t any speech co m m u n icatio n situ atio n involves two aspects: (1) im plicit and presuppositional and (2) explicit and illocutionary [cf. F i l l m o r e 1971b], I he im plicit presuppositional aspect w ould concern all conditions which m u st be satisfied in o rd e r for a p artic u la r illocutionary act to be effectively perform ed in saying (potential) sentences. P resu p p o sitio n un d ersto o d in such a w ay ap p e ars to be m o st relevant for the d escription o f speech act verbs an d d en o tin g the scenarios they im ply.
2.4. Descriptive Properties o f Lexical Items
O th er types o f in fo rm atio n inherent in verbs can be ap p ro ach ed w ithin the fram ew ork o f deseriptivity. A large sub-class o f verbs in general has been identified as descriptive [cf. S n e l l - H o r n b y 1983]. Such verbs ap p e ar to possess built-in inferences concerning, e.g. m a n n e r o f the action they relate o r refer to, o r som e em otional c o n te n t th a t could be described as Speaker’s /N a rra to r’s attitude. In her analysis, M ary Snell-H ornby suggested th a t a descriptive verb (D V ) m ay be provisionally rendered in the fo rm u la as in (17) below,
(17) D V = A N u + M o d ( + x)
where A N u stands fo r the act-nucleus or a sem antic core (usually a verb), M od for the m odyfying adverbial elem ent — m od ifican t, an d x is u n d ersto o d as an o p tio n al elem ent w ith o u t evaluative p ro p erties an d n o t expressible in term s o f adjectives or m an n er adverbs. T h u s, th ere is on e m o re d istin ctio n , th a t betw een nuclear (capable o f being act-nucleus) and non-nuclear (m ore specific) verbs.
W ithin the do m ain o f the verbs o f speaking the a p p ro a c h ca n be exemplified as in (18) below:
(18) fa lte r = speak (A N u) + hesitantly, weakly, w ith b ro k e n voice (M o d ) m u tter = speak (A N u ) + indistinctly (M od)
gabble = speak (A N u) + fast, indistinctly (M o d)
T h e definitions as above w hich reveal m an n er-elab o ratio n in verbs show obvious co rrelatio n s w ith everyday synonym ous expressions, e.g. m um ble
— ‘ta lk in d istinctly’. D eseriptivity in verbs can also be rend ered in term s o f sem antic roles and features.
3. C O N C LU SIO N S
In sum m ary, it is believed th a t m eaning can be, a t least partially , explained. T h e aim o f the p ap e r is to present results o f a ten tativ e analysis o f selected verbal concepts in English and Polish. T h e analysis generates insights b o th into the stru ctu re o f sem antic fields and in to the sim ilarities an d differences in the lexicalisation structure betw een b o th language system s. I t also allow s fo r the identification o f the closest c o u n te rp a rts in the languages and th e po in ts o f differentiation. F u rh tcrm o re , it allow s fo r the identificatio n o f the m o st relevant ways o f describing the senses. It is a p p a re n t, an d m ay be co m m on know ledge, th a t verbs belonging to different sem antic d o m ain s show differen t stru ctu re in their sem antic co n ten t. It appears th a t various sem antic fields m ay recquire different types o f description if the analysis is to be precise. D ifferent ap pro ach es highlight different aspects o f the sem antics o f lexemes. F o r exam ple, stative descriptivity or nuclear verbs could, it appears, be successfully presented within the fram ew ork o f form alised co m ponential analysis. In c o n tra st, d yn am ic descriptivity and n o n -n u c le ar descriptive verbs, as well as speech act verbs, seem to require a m o re elab orate, possibly less formalised m eth o d o f definition. F u rth erm o re , som e featu res are perceived as m o re im p o rta n t th a n others as sho uld be m a rk e d as salient.
T h e limited tw o areas o f verbal concepts u n d er investigation have d e m o n strate d considerable differences in th eir co m p o n en tial analysis. T h e P R O M IS E g ro u p , m ostly com prising verbs which can be referred to as ‘p erfo rm ativ e’ o r ‘illo cu tro n ary force’ verbs, illustrates the w hole fram e o f a n ac tio n related to their use, w hich results in m u ch richer circu m stan tial p ro perties. O n th e o th er han d , verbal concepts related to babble o r stu tter can be best term ed as ‘descriptive’ o f th e m a n n e r and built on th e base o f som e general o r su p ero rd in ate term . T h u s, such typological differences have proved to have interesting im plications fo r th e analysis o f th e verbs in questio n (cf. A ppendix).
T en ta tiv e verbal entries are presented in the A ppendix. In general, in fo rm a tio n provided in these entries should be seen as tentative: as a basis fo r fu rth e r analysis and m odification. A com prehensive set o f relevant, sufficient and uniform sem antic represen tatio n s aw aits th e analysis o f a far larger d a ta base. T h e lexemes analysed so far fall roughly in to tw o m ain g roups. O ne o f the groups com prises lexemes related to 'prom ise'. T hese lexemes, presented as the exam ples 1 to 13, relate to speech acts. T h ey include: prom ise1, guarantee1, guarantee2, pledge1, pledge2, sw ear2, sw ear3, swear*, undertake2, vouch f o r 1, vouch f o r 2, vow1, vow2. V erbs w hich could be referred to as ‘d escriptive’ are presented as the exam ples 14 to 35. T hese
include: stam m er, stutter, stumble*, fa lte r 2, m um ble*, m utter, p a tter2, sp lu tter1, babblel , blab, ch at1, chatter1, blether {on), drivel (on), gab, gabble, gibber, jabber, p rattle (on), rabbit on, waffle (on) and natter.
In re latio n to the ‘P R O M IS E ’ g roup, the con cep tual area o f these lexemes is also present in Polish and m ost o f th e English lexemes have close co u n te rp a rts in Polish, cf. pro m ise1 = przyrzec, obiecać, guarantee2 = gw arantow ać, guarantee3 = rekom endow ać, vow 1 = ślubować, etc. Because o f th e close m u tu al relationship o f the verbs w ithin the d o m ain , a p a rt from their closest synonym s, o th er term s from the field are listed in sq u are b rackets to provide links to related term s. In ad d itio n , ‘prom ise’ is given as a h eadw ord and placed in squ are brackets to indicate th a t it is u n d e rsto o d as a co n v e n tio n a l label fo r the field. A ll verbs fro m th e ‘P R O M IS E ’ g ro u p are rich in th eir circum stantial properties. T hey seem to d en o te the w hole scenario o r scene o f a related event. T h ey involve th e n o tio n o f p resu p p o sitio n in th e sense th a t th ey seem to in c o rp o ra te in fo rm atio n concerning elem ents such as ‘cau se’ o f the described action , po ten tial ‘effect’, ‘m a n n e r’ o r (p u rp o rted ) ‘in te n tio n ’ o f th e speaker. T hey often offer clues to the base co m p o n en t o f the act. F o r exam ple, it ap p e ars th a t all the lexemes from the ‘P R O M IS E ’ g ro u p share the elem ent o f ‘A g e n t’s personal credibility as a g u aran tee’ which in this study h as been referred to as the ‘B ase’ in section B .l.d . o f the en try w hich describes circu m stan tial p rop erties. T h e em phasis on ‘m ak in g o th e r people believe th a t...’, w hich is ap p aren tly in co rp o rated in the lexemes in q uestio n , is also recognised as ‘salient’ in term s o f IN T E N T IO N an d V O L IT IO N . T h e ‘P R O M IS E ’ g ro u p o f lexemes differ w ith respect to elem ents such as ‘m a n n e r’ (e.g. form a! vs. n o n -fo rm al) o r a d d itio n a l ‘p re s u p p o sitio n a l’ in fo rm atio n . F o r exam ple, som e o f the lexemes have ‘sacred o r sem i-sacred c o n n o ta tio n s’ o r ‘religious or quasi-religious c o n n o ta tio n s’ (cf. sw ear2, vow1, vow2). T h u s, the analysis presented so far d em o n strates som e kind o f m ix tu re o f relev ant m eans for th e descrip tion o f sem antic p ro p erties o f the verbs in q uestion.
In general, verbs related to speech acts seem to require the m eth o d o f definition (cf. ‘cause som eone to believe th a t...’) while descriptive verbs are best rendered by a com b in atio n o f a general term related to speech (say, tell, talk, speak) and features w hich specify, e.g. ‘m a n n e r’ o f speaking (cf. exam ples 14-35). M o st o f the descriptive verbs presented in the A p p en d ix involve ‘m a n n e r’ features such as: ‘in d istin ct’ (stam m er, stutter, m um ble, m utter), ‘in fo rm al’ (blab, babble, chatter) o r features describing tim e - related pro p erties, e.g. ‘fa st’ (patter, splutter, babble) o r ‘c o n tin u o u s’, i.e. d en o tin g excessive flow o f usually em pty talk (prattle (on), rabbit on). T his co nceptual clem ent is often m ark ed by the presence o f th e E nglish p rep o sitio n on w hich accom panies the verb. A n o th er elem ent w hich is often in co rp o rated •
D
CQ
in descriptive verbs is ‘sp ea k er’s e v a lu a tio n ’. T h e verbs ran ge from n eu tra l term s (e.g. chat) to em phatic ones which often encapsulate negative evaluation o n th e p a rt o f the speaker (cf. blether (on), drivel (on), ja bb er etc.).
In relation to Polish, it appears th a t the ‘P R O M IS E ’ g roup, as m entioned above, p ro duces a n eater p a tte rn in th eir Polish c o u n te rp a rts. In c o n tra st, descriptive verbs d o n o t show a sim ple p a tte rn o f o ne-to -o n e o r even one-to -m an y correspondence. T here is a conceptual co rrespo nd ence betw een fields in b o th languages.
In sum m ary, the analysis presented here is a ten tative one and will be subject to fu rth e r changes. It is an exercise, n o t couched w ithin a single theoretical fram ew ork, m ean t to illum inate the areas o f interest, im p o rtan ce an d difficulty, and to co n trib u te to fu rth er an d m o re com plete research.
T o conclude, it should be adm itted th at any form alisation m u st necessarily be conventional and c a n n o t reflect the dynam icity w hich is inh eren t in m eaning. It is un d ersto o d th a t any sem antic re p resen ta tio n we p ro p o se c a n n o t be com plete and th o ro u g h ly satisfactory. F u rth e rm o re , it m u st alw ays be the result o f som e kind o f idealisation. N evertheless, they can prov ide theoretical insights in to the n atu re and w orking o f n a tu ra l lang uag e and p ro ve valuable fo r p ractical purposes.
A PPE N D IX
I. The entries structure H eadw ord:
A: P h onetic tran sc rip tio n B: Sem antics
1. C oncep tu al analysis
a) S u p ero rd in a te category (elaborated as a sep arate h ead w o rd o r treated as a prim e)
b) salient pro p erty
c) p artic ip a n ts o f a act: A gent, E xperiencer, O bject... d) circu m stan tial properties: C ause, Base, M an n er... e) speaker evalu ation
0 su b o rd in a te categories (elaborated as sep arate h eadw ords) g) synonym s (elab o rated as sep arate headw ords)
2. P olish d efin itatio n 3. P olish equiv anents
4. A nto n y m s (elaborated as sep arate h eadw ord s acco rd ing to th e n u m b er o f definite dim ensions used)
C: S yntax - verb p attern s
D : E nglish exam ples with Polish equivalents E: Special rem arks
1. U sage (style, register, etc.)
2. R em arks counteracting Polish interference, based on contrastive analysis F: C on cep tu al extension o f head w ord '; headw ord"; h ead w o rd '"... (elabo rated
as sep arate head w o rd s w here necessary).
E x a m p l e 1 P R O M IS E 1 A. ['pm m is]
B la . SAY; T H IN K (perform ative) lb . IN T E N T IO N , V O L IT IO N lc. A gent: [4 -H U M A N ]; usually 1
E xpcriencer: [ + H U M A N ]
Object: action X / ‘n a tu ra l o b ject’ (things) P ath : 1
In stru m en t: verbal or m ental action
Id. C ause: explicit or implied request o r expectation Base: A g en t’s personal credibility as a gu aran tee
Effect: prediction o f the future act; o r self-imposed obligation: A g u aran tee/cause X h appen
le. S peaker evaluation: 0
If. [G U A R A N T E E 1' 2; P L E D G E 1' 2; S W E A R 2/3/4; V O W 1/2; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1/2]
lg. G IV E O N E ’S W O R D ; A S S U R E ; VOW
B2. pow iedzieć/m ów ić kom uś, że się coś zrobi, załatw i, d a k om uś B3. przyrzec/-kać; obiec-ać/-yw ać; d ać/-w ać słowo
C. V I'
D l . I ’ll be back a t one o ’clock, I prom ise. Będę z pow rotem o pierwszej, obiecuję.
2. I prom ised yo u r fa th e r th a t you should never know he h ad been in prison.
Przyrzekłem tw em u ojcu, że nigdy nie dow iesz się o jeg o pobycie w więzieniu.
3. Y ou should always keep y o u r prom ises.
Zaw sze pow inieneś dotrzym yw ać swoich o b ietnic/d anego słowa. 4. Ben prom ised m e a new ca r on m y birth d ay .
Ben obiecał m i now y sam ochód n a urodziny. 5. D ick was prom ised a jo b in A laska.
E. Special rem arks:
lto keep a prom ise' = do trzym ać/-yw ać obietnicy I prom ise y o u ( = I w arn you), the w ork w o n ’t be easy.
‘p ro m u e someone the m oon/the earth' = obiecyw ać złote góry P rom ised L a n d = Ziem ia O biecana
F . P R O M IS E 2 ( = zapow iadać, rokow ać nadzieje)
E x a m p l e 2 G U A R A N T E E 2 A . [gæren'ti:] B la . SAY [P R O M IS E ] lb . IN T E N T IO N lc. A gent: [ + H U M A N ]
Experiencer: [ + H U M A N ]; usually collective O bject: actio n X
In stru m en t: verbal
Id. C ause: E xperiencer’s uncertain ty
Base: perso nal credibility as a guarantee In ten tio n : cause people believe X h appen le. S peaker evaluation:
If. 0
lg. [P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 1' 2; P L E D G E 1' 2; VOW ; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1' 2]
B2. zapew nić, że coś się zrobi lub załatw i ko m uś, że coś n a pew no sie w ydarzy
B3. gw arantow ać, obiecyw ać C . VT
D l . T hey have guaranteed delivery w ithin th ree days. Z ag w ara n to w an o /-li dostaw ę w ciągu trzech dni. 2. I ’m n o t g u aran teein g th a t this will w ork.
N ie obiecuję/nie m ogę d ać gw arancji, że to się uda. E l . 7 7 / guaranteethat y o u ’ll enjoy the play. ( = I ’m sure)
2. ‘som ething is g u a ra n te e d ’ = is certain
3. often w ith n o n -h u m an agent (personification), e.g.; ‘T h e C o n stitu tio n (the law) g u aran tees...’
F . G U A R A N T E E 1 (ręczyć za kogoś)
G U A R A N T E E 3 (daw ać gw arancję, ręjkojm ię n a coś) G U A R A N T E E 4 (zapew niać coś ( A [ + H U M A N ]) G U A R A N T E E 5 (zapew niać coś (A[ —H U M A N ])
E x a m p l e 3 G U A R A N T E E 1 A. [gæren'ti:] B la . SAY [P R O M IS E ] lb . IN T E N T IO N lc. A gent: [+ H U M A N ]
E xperiencer: [ + H U M A N ]; usually collective O bject: 1 )[+ H U M A N ] ‘X ’ 2 )[+ A B S T R A C T ] ‘Y ’ Id. C ause: E xpericncer’s u n certainty
Base: personal credibility as a g u aran tee
In ten tio n : cause E xperiencer to believe X /Y is g o o d / tru e lc. 0
If. 0
lg. V O U C H F O R 2; R E C O M M E N D
[P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 2; S W E A R 2' 3' 4; P L E D G E 1' 2; V O W 1' 2; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1' 2]
B2. zapew niać, że k to ś (coś) jest godny szacunku, odpow iedzialny, godny zaufania
B3. ręczyć za kogoś, rekom endow ać, polecać C . VT
D l . ...an E nglishm an w ho had been g u aranteed to him over th e p h o n e by one o f his friends.
...jakiś A nglik, któ reg o polecił m u przez telefon jeden z jego przyjaciół. E.
F . G U A R A N T E E 2 (gw arantow ać, obiecyw ać)
G U A R A N T E E 3 (daw ać gw arancje, ręjkojm ię n a coś) G U A R A N T E E 4 (zapew niać coś ( A [ + H U M A N ]) G U A R A N T E E 5 (zapew niać coś ( A [ - H U M A N ])
E x a m p l e 4
P L E D G E 1 А. ['р Ы з ]
B la . SAY, G IV E [P R O M IS E ] lb . IN T E N T IO N , V O L IT IO N
lc. A gent: [+ H U M A N ], usu. 1 + (collective) E xperiencer: [ + H U M A N ], usu. 1 + (collective) O bject: actionX , usu. ‘g o o d ’
P ath: 1
Id . C ause: advancing a ‘g o o d ’ cause
Base: A g en t’s personal credibility as a g u aran tee M an n er: form al
Effect: predictio n o f th e fu tu re act; A g e n t’s self-im posed obligation
A g en t’s oblig atio n to cause X h ap p en
In ten tio n : to obligate A to perform X / cause X h ap pen Place: social, usu. public
le. 0
If. 0 r*
lg. G U A R A N T E E 2, O F F E R
[P R O M IS E 1; S W E A R 2/3/4; P L E D G E 2; V O W 1/2; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1/2]
B2. pow ażnie lub uroczyście zapew nić, że się coś o d /d a lub załatw i B3. obiecać uroczyście, deklarow ać, przyrzec, zobow iązać/-zyw ać się C . VT
D l . H e once pledged his vote to m e, w ith o u t m y asking...
K iedyś przyrzekł mi swój głos w w y b o rach /o d d ać n a m n ie swój głos, bez p rośby z m ojej strony.
2. A lot o f people have pledged a lot o f m o ney this evening.
Dzisiejszego wieczoru wiele osob zadeklarow ało/obiecało d użo pieniędzy. 3. T h e y h av e pledged th a t an y d e ta ils given to th em will re m a in
confidential.
Zapew nili nas (z całą pow agą), że w szelkie/jakiekolw iek szczegóły p rzek azan e im p o z o sta n ą poufne.
E. Usage: 1. esp. literary o r em otive
2. as opposed to prom ise - difficulties envisaged 3. as opposed to vow - m o re private act
F . ‘to pledge one's w o rd ' = to m ak e a solem n prom ise, a t th e risk o f loosing o n e’s h o n o u r, im plying th a t if one does n o t fulfil it s/he will n o t expect people to believe him /h er ever again, e.g.
7 pledged m y word o f (honour) that I would never again get into debt.' lto take the pledge' = zobow iązyw ać się, ślubow ać w strzem ięźliw ość (pledge is o ften tran slate d as a c o u n te rp a rt for ślubować in P o- lish-English bilingual dictionaries. H ow ever, ślubować is m o re like vow referring to ‘solem n pro m ise’)
F P L E D G E 2 (zobow iązyw ać się lub kogoś) P L E D G E 3 (wznosić to ast)
E x a m p l e 5
P L E D G E 2 A. [pled3]
B la . SAY [P R O M IS E ]
lb . IN T E N T IO N , V O L IT IO N
le. A gent: [+ H U M A N ]; usu. 1 + (collective) E xperiencer: [4- H U M A N ]
Object: 1) [ + H U M A N ]; 2) action X In stru m en t: verbal
Id. C ause: advancing a ‘g o o d ’ cause
Base: A g en t’s personal credibility as a guaran tee M an n er: usu. form al
Effect: p red iction o f a fu tu re act
In ten tio n : A g e n t’s self-im posed oblig atio n to fulfil X Place: usu. public (social act)
le. 0 If. 0
lg . D E D IC A T E
[P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 1' 2; P L E D G E 1; V O W 1' 2; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1' 2]
B2. zobow iązać siebie lub kogoś d o zrobienia czegoś lub p o p a rc ia jak ieg o ś d ziałania, osoby, grupy ludzi lub idei
B3. zobow iązać się pod słowem h o n o ru , ślubow ać, o d d ać się (idei, celow i) C . VT
D l . I was pledged to secrecy.
Złożyłem ślub zachow ania tajem nicy.
2. T hey pledged them selves never to tell the secret.
Ś lubow ali I zaprzysiężyli się, że nigdy nie w yjaw ią sekretu. E. Usage: especially literary o r em otive
F . P L E D G E 1 P L E D G E 3 P L E D G E 4 E x a m p l e 6 S W E A R 2 (S W O R E ; S W O R N ) A . [swea] B la . SAY [P R O M IS E ] lb . IN T E N T IO N , V O L IT IO N , (perform ative) lc. A gent: [ + H U M A N ] E xperiencer: [ + H U M A N ]
Object: action X / facts In stru m en t: verbal
ld . C ause: E xp eriencer’s explicit or im plicit reluctance to believe A Base: perso nal credibility as a g u aran tee sacred co n n o ta tio n s Effect: prediction o f a fu tu re act
A g e n t’s self-im posed obligation to cause X h ap p en Intention: to cause people to believe ‘A g ent cause X h a p p e n ’ M an n er: form al le. 0 If. 0 lg. V O W 1 [P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 1' 2; P L E D G E 1' 2; S W E A R 3'4; V O W 1' 2; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1' 2]
B2. uroczyście i pow ażnie zapew nić, że się coś zrobi B3. przysięgać, zaklinać się
C. VT
D l . I sw ear I will never tell anyone.
Przysięgam , że nigdy n ik o m u nie powiem .
E. Usage: usually im plies fith in the inherent, sem i-religious o r semi- -m agical pow er o f speech; it is im plied th a t if the speaker does n o t keep the prom ise, then som ething ‘b a d ’ will h ap p e n to him in fu tu re as in the case o f P olish zaklinać się.
swear by = być zagorzałym zw olennikiem czegoś swear in = zaprzysięgać (prezydenta,...)
F . S W E A R 1 S W E A R 3 S W E A R E x a m p l e 7 S W E A R 3 A. [swea] В la . SA Y [P R O M IS E ] lb . IN T E N T IO N , V O L IT IO N (perform ative) lc. A gent: [ + H U M A N ]
Experiencer: [ + H U M A N ]; 1 + (usually collective) O bject: act o f speaking/credibility
In stru m en t: verbal
ld . Base: personal credibility as a g u aran tee M an n er: form al
Place: form al, esp. a t the c o u rt o f law
le. 0 If. 0 lg . VOW
[P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 1' 2; P L E D G E 1' 2; S W E A R 2'4; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1' 2; V O W 1' 2]
B2. uroczyście lub pow ażnie zapew nić, że m ów i się praw dę B3. przysiąc, przysięgać, zaprzysiąc
C. V
D l . D o you sw ear to tell the tru th , the w hole tru th and n o th in g b u t the tru th ?
Czy przysięgasz m ów ić praw dę, całą praw dę i tylko praw dę? 2. B efore giving evidence you have to sw ear o n th e Bible.
Przed złożeniem zeznań m usisz (musi p a n /p a n i / trzeba) przysiąc n a Biblię. F . S W E A R 1 S W E A R 2 S W E A R 4 E x a m p l e 8 S W E A R 4 (S W O R E /S W O R N ) A . [swea] B l.a . SA Y [P R O M IS E ] l.b . IN T E N T IO N , V O L IT IO N (perform ative) I.e. A gent: [ + H U M A N ] E xperiencer: [ + H U M A N ] Object: [ + A B S T R A C T ] (X) Instru m ent: verbal
l.d . Base: personal credibility as a guarantee M an n er: form al
Intention: cause E xperiencer to believe X is tru e I.e. 0
l.f. 0 1.g. IN S IS T
[P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 1' 2; P L E D G E 1' 2; S W E A R 2' 3; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1' 2; V O W 1' 2]
B2. zapew niać z po w ag ą / z przekon aniem , że coś jest p ra w d ą, praw dziw e B3. d ać /d a w ać słow o, stanow czo utrzym yw ać, że..., kląć się na...
C. V
D l . I ’m no t prepared to swear to it, but I thought I saw him in Exeter once. N ie m ogę dać słowa, ale wydaje mi się, że widziałem go kiedyś w Exeter. 2. She did n o t know a thing, she swore...
3. I sw ear on m y children’s heads th a t it is true. K lnę się n a głowy m oich dzieci, że to p raw da. E. Usage:
to swear blind (inform al) = to em phasise o n e’s certainty th a t som ething is tru e o r really did h ap pen, e.g.: I would have sworn blind it was water (Jestem pewien, że to (była) w oda...)
F . S W E A R 1 S W E A R 2 S W E A R 3 E x a m p l e 9 U N D E R T A K E A. [,Anda'teiK] В la . SAY, S T A T E [P R O M IS E ] lb . IN T E N T IO N lc. A gent: [ + H U M A N ] E xperiencer: [ + H U M A N ], often 1 + Object: action X
Id. Base: A g e n t’s personal credibility as a gu arantee
In ten tio n : cause E xperiencer believe A gent cause X h ap p en le . 0
If. 0 lg . A G R E E
[P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 1' 2; P L E D G E 1' 2; S W E A R 2' 3'4; V O U C H F O R 1' 2; V O W 1' 2]
B2. zapew nić, że się coś zrobi, czegoś d opilnu je B3. p o d jąć się, obiecać, zgodzić się
C. V
D l . I u n d erta k e to preserve strictly n eutral position.
Z apew niam / obiecuję, że zachow am zdecydowanie neutraln e stanow isko. 2. M o st share holders have u n d erta k en to accept the offer.
(Z decydow ana) w iększość udziałow ców o biecała/zgodziła się przyjąć ofertę.
F . U N D E R T A K E 1 (podjąć się; tak e on)
E x a m p l e 10
V O U C H F O R 1 A. ['vairtjfa]
B la . SA Y [P R O M IS E ]
lc. A gent: [ + H U M A N ]
E xperiencer: [4 -H U M A N ]; usu. 1 + Object: [ + A B S T R A C T ] (X); usu. facts P ath: 1
In stru m en t: verbal
Id. C ause: explicit o r im plicit d o u b t a b o u t X Base: personal credibility as a guarantee M an ner: usu. form al
In ten tio n : cause E xperiencer to believe X is tru e good le. 0
If. 0
lg. P R O V E ; G U A R A N T E E 2
[P R O M IS E 1; P L E D G E 1' 2; S W E A R 2' 3' 4; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 2; V O W 1' 2]
B2. ośw iadczać, że jest się p rzekonan ym o praw dziw ości lub praw idłow ości czegoś.
B3. ręczyć za, zapew niać o czymś (wierzyć w coś) C. P H R A S A L VERB
D l . I can vouch for the accuracy o f m y inform atio n. M o gę ręczyć za d o k ład n o ść m oich inform acji. F . V O U C H F O R 2 E x a m p l e 11 V O U C H F O R 2 A . ['vautjfs] В l.a . SAY [P R O M IS E ] lb . IN T E N T IO N (perform ative) lc. A gent: [ + H U M A N ] E xperiencer: [ + H U M A N ]; usu. 1 + O bject: [ + A B S T R A C T ] (X); [ + H U M A N (Y)] In stru m en t: verbal
Id. C ause: explicit or im plicit d o u b ts a b o u t X / Y Base: personal credibility as a g u arantee
In ten tio n : cause E xperiencer to believe X is tru e o f Y M an n er: usu. form al
le. 0 If. 0
lg. S P E A K F O R ; G U A R A N T E E 2; R E C O M M E N D
[P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 1; P L E D G E 1' 2; S W E A R 2' 3' 4; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1; V O W 1' 2]
B2. ośw iadczać, że wierzy się w czyjeś p o p raw n e zachow anie, bierze n a siebie za nie odpow iedzialność
B3. ręczyć za kogoś, w staw iać się za kim ś C. P H R A S A L V ER B
D l . H e said y o u ’d vouch fo r him.
P ow iedział, że za niego poręczysz, w staw isz się za nim . 2. I can vouch for him ; he will w ork.
M ogę ręczyć/ ręczę za niego; będzie d o b rze pracow ał. F . V O U C H F O R I E x a m p l e 12 V O W 1 A. ['vau] B la . SAY, T H IN K [P R O M IS E ] lb . IN T E N T IO N , V O L IT IO N (perform ative) lc. A gent: [+ H U M A N ]; usu. 1
Experiencer: [ + H U M A N ]; often A gent = E xperiencer Object: usu. action X
In stru m en t: verbal or m ental
Id. C ause: often to p revent fu tu re unw illingness to fulfil X Base: sacred co n n o tatio n s
M an ner: form al
In ten tio n : A g e n t’s self-im posed o bligation to fulfil X le. 0
If. 0
lg. S W E A R 2
[P R O M IS E 1; G U A R A N T E E 1' 2; P L E D G E 1' 2; S W E A R 3'4; U N D E R T A K E 2; V O U C H F O R 1' 2; V O W 2]
B2. zobow iązyw ać się uroczyście do zrobienia czegoś
B3. ślubow ać, uroczyście przyrzekać, składać/złożyć przysięgę
C. V
D l . H e vowed to kill his wife’s lover.
U roczyście przysiągł/poprzysiągł zabić k o c h a n k a swojej żony. 2. H e h ad vowed never to let it h ap p e n again.
Ślubow ał, że nigdy nie dopuści, aby się to pow tórzyło. E . Usage:
1. m o re solem n th a n swear
2. vow.v (pi. ) = śluby (e.g. m ałżeńskie, czystości etc.) 3. usu. quasi-religious co n n o tatio n s
4. to m a k e a vow (a resolution) = vow e.g. ‘H e m ad e a vow to give u p sm o kin g.’ Z decydow ał/ przyrzekł sobie, że rzuci palenie. F . V O W 2
