Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 23:1 (2023) ► pp.93–120

How did you break that?

Semantic boundaries of Italian and English action verbs encoding breaking events

ORCID logo | Università degli Studi di Firenze (Italy)
ORCID logo | Università di Bologna (Italy)

Cross-linguistic research has brought extensive evidence on how languages differ in their categorization of actions and events, pointing out the differences in the semantic categories they establish, their boundaries and their degree of granularity with respect to the variety of events they refer to. Verbs describing breaking events vary in terms of generality or specificity of the action description (e.g., breaking or snapping a twig) or salience of specific semantic components characterising the event (e.g., smash being associated with violent destruction) and the same event can be construed differently within the same language (e.g., crack/break an egg). In this article we set out to explore the semantic boundaries of verbs describing breaking events within and between languages. We propose a new methodology combining corpora and a video ontology, using verb pairs generally regarded as translation equivalents in bilingual dictionaries. The study contributes to research on semantic categorization and verbs correspondences between Italian and English.

Keywords: action verbs, breaking events, contrastive analysis, corpus, semantic categorization, English/Italian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Breaking verbs and breaking events
  • 3.Data and resources
    • 3.1Imagact
    • 3.2Corpora: TenTen family
  • 4.Methodology and procedure
    • 4.1Annotation schema and parameters
    • 4.2Parameters and the video annotation
    • 4.3Inter-annotator agreement
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Corpora annotation
    • 5.2Visualisation model
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Authorship contribution statement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.22004.cac
References
Bouveret, M. and Sweetser, E.
2009 Multi-Frame Semantics, Metaphoric Extensions and Grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 35(1): 49–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M.
2005 Why can’t you ‘Open’ a Nut or ‘Break’ a Cooked Noodle? Learning Covert Object Categories in Action Word Meanings. In Building Object Categories in Developmental Time, L. Gershkoff-Stowe and D. Rakison (eds), 209–243. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, S.
(2014) From Visual Prototypes of Action to Metaphors Extending the IMAGACT Ontology of Action to Secondary Meanings. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014). Tenth Joint ISO-ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. Reykjavik, Iceland, 26 May 2014. European Language Resources Association. 53–56.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. and Hijazo-Gascón, A.
2016 Semantic Categorization of Placement Verbs in L1 and L2 Danish and Spanish. Language Learning 66(1): 191–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, M.
2015 Valency Patterns in Italian. In Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia (Volume 1), A. Malchukov and B. Comrie (eds), 417–482. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A.
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R.
2018 Extending the Notion of Near-Synonymy. Languages in Contrast 18(1): 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Martínez, N. J. and Faber, P.
2019 Who Stole what from whom? A Corpus-Based, Cross-Linguistic Study of English and Spanish Verbs of Stealing. Languages in Contrast 20(1): 107–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
1970 The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds), 120–133. Ginn: Waltham.Google Scholar
Fuji, S. I., Radetzky, P. and Sweetser, E.
2013 A Multi-Frame Semantics of Separation Verbs. In Language and the Creative Mind, M. Borkent, B. Dancygier and J. Hinnell (eds), 137–153. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, G.
2015 Validazione dell’ontologia dell’azione IMAGACT per lo studio e la diagnosi del Mild Cognitive Impairment. PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Firenze.
Gärdenfors, P., Jost, J. and Warglien, M.
2018 From Actions to Effects: Three Constraints on Event Mappings. Frontiers in Psychology 9(1391): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husson, F. and Josse, J.
2014 Multiple Correspondence Analysis. In The Visualization and Verbalization of Data, J. Blasius and M. Greenacre (eds), 164–184. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis Group LLC.Google Scholar
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V. and Rychlý, P.
2013 The TenTen Corpus Family. Paper presented at the Seventh International Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2013), England, 23–26 July 2013. Available at [URL]
Johnson, M.
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, D.
2019 Concepts in the Brain: The View from Cross-Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A. and Narasimhan, B.
(eds) 2012 Events of Putting and Taking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1986 Abstract Motion. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, California, USA 15–17 February. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 455–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, N.
2015 How to Do Linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Verbs of Letting in Germanic and Romance Languages. Languages in Contrast 16(1): 84–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T. and Xiao, R.
2007 Chapter 2. Parallel and Comparable Corpora: What is Happening? In Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, G. Anderman and M. Rogers (eds), 18–31). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Boster, J. S. and Bowerman, M.
2008 The Cross-Linguistic Categorization of Everyday Events: A Study of Cutting and Breaking. Cognition 109(2): 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Van Staden, M. and Boster, J. S.
2007 The Semantic Categories of Cutting and Breaking Events: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 18(2): 133–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Gennari, S. and Imai, M.
2010 Lexicalization Patterns and the World-to-Words Mapping. In Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience, B. C. Malt and P. Wolff (eds), 29–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
2004a Fictive Motion as Cognitive Simulation. Memory & Cognition 321: 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b The Conceptual Motivation of Fictive Motion. In Studies in Linguistic Motivation, G. Radden and K. Panther (eds), 221–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
1996 Subjective Motion in English and Japanese Verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 71: 183–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mereu, L. and Piunno, V.
2019 The Argument Structure of Verbs of Hitting and Breaking in Italian. Lingue e Linguaggio 18(1): 143–176.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M.
2014 The Semantic Variation of Action Verbs in Multilingual Spontaneous Speech Corpora. In Spoken Corpora and Linguistics Studies, T. Raso and H. Mello (eds), 152–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, M., Monachini, M., Calabrese, O., Panunzi, A., Frontini, F., Gagliardi, G. and Russo, I.
2012 The IMAGACT Cross-Linguistic Ontology of Action. A New Infrastructure for Natural Language Disambiguation. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). Istanbul, Turkey, 21-27 May 2012. European Language Resources Association. 948–955.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M., Panunzi, A. and Gregori, L.
2018 Action Identification and Local Equivalence of Action Verbs: The Annotation Framework of the IMAGACT Ontology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Workshop 7 –Annotation, Recognition and Evaluation of Actions (AREA). Miyazaki, Japan, 7–12 May 2018. European Language Resources Association. 23–30.Google Scholar
Panunzi, A., De Felice, I., Gregori, L., Jacoviello, S., Monachini, M., Moneglia, M., Quochi, V. and Russo, I.
2014 Translating Action Verbs Using a Dictionary of Images: The IMAGACT Ontology. Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus. Bolzano, Italy, 15–19 July 2014. EURAC research. 1163–1170.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
2017 The Semantics of Lexical Underspecification. Folia Linguistica 51(s1000): 323–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissman, L., van Putten, S. and Majid, A.
2022 Evidence for a Shared Instrument Prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science 46(5): 13140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eisenbeiss, S. and Narasimhan, B.
2011 Putting Things in Places. Developmental Consequences of Linguistic Typology. In Event Representation in Language and Cognition, J. Bohnemeyer and E. Pederson (eds), 134–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchomel, V. and Pomikálek, J.
2012 Efficient Web Crawling for large Text Corpora. Proceedings of the Seventh Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC7). Lyon, France, 17 April 2012. 39–43.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., Ibarretxe-Antunanõ, I., Kopecka, A. and Majid, A.
2014 Manners of Human Gait: A Crosslinguistic Event-Naming Study. Cognitive Linguistics 25(4): 701–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1996 Fictive Motion in Language and “ception”. In Language and Space, P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. F. Garrett (eds), 211–276. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vanelli, L.
2019 Modelli di frase a confronto. Punti di forza e nodi critici della grammatica valenziale. Italiano LinguaDue 21: 364–378.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å.
2020 Contrasting Semantic Fields Across Languages. In New Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics: Empirical and Methodological Challenges, R. Enghels, B. Defrancq and M. Jansegers (eds), 265–312. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar