Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:2 (2014) ► pp. 275–334

Stative dimensional verbs in German

| Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
Stative verbs such as German wiegen ‘weigh’ and heißen ‘be called’ encode an attribute of the subject referent such as WEIGHT or NAME and, in addition, allow for the specification of a value for this attribute. From a cognitive perspective, we refer to attributes of this type as object dimensions and to stative verbs encoding object dimensions as stative dimensional verbs. We argue in favor of the relevance of these verbs to cognitive science and semantics. After introducing basic types of stative dimensional verbs, we discuss the results of an in-depth investigation of these verbs in German. In addition to the kind of dimensions encoded by stative verbs, there will be a particular focus on contrasts in the distribution of dimension encoding verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Moreover, we will present a taxonomy of stative dimensional verbs in dependence of the specific dimension.
Keywords: stative verbs, German, dimensions, frame semantics, attributes
Published online: 08 August 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.2.02gam
References
Ameka, Felix K. & Stephen C. Levinson
2007 The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals, and other beasts. Linguistics 45(5/6). 847–871.Google Scholar
Baader, Franz, Diego Calvanese, Deborah L. McGuinness, Daniele Nardi & Peter Patel-Schneider
(eds.) 2003 The Description Logic handbook: Theory, implementation, applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W
1983 Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition 111. 211–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts, 21–74. Erlbaum: Hillsday.Google Scholar
Beavers, John
2006 Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
2008 Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow & Martin Schäfer (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 245–265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berthele, Raphael
2004 The typology of motion and posture verbs: A variationist account. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology. Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 93–126. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred
1987 Semantik der Graduierung. In Manfred Bierwisch & Ewald Lang (eds.), Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven, 91–286. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred & Ewald Lang
(eds.) 1987 Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
Duden: Deutsches Universalwörterbuch
2003 CD-ROM edition. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Caudal, Patrick & David Nicolas
2005 Types of degrees and types of event structures. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications, 277–299. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R
1979 Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eschenbach, Carola
1995 Zählangaben – Maßangaben: Bedeutung und konzeptuelle Interpretation von Numeralia. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins
2000 In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 761. 546–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filip, Hana
1999 Aspect, eventuality types and nominal reference. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
2012 Lexical aspect. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 721-751. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens & Thomas Gamerschlag
2014 We’re going through changes: How change of state verbs and arguments combine in scale composition. Lingua 1411. 30–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gamerschlag, Thomas & Wiebke Petersen
2012 An analysis of the evidential use of German perception verbs. In Christopher Hart (ed.), Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, vol. 11, 1–18. http://​uk​-cla​.org​.uk​/proceedings.Google Scholar
Gamerschlag, Thomas, Wiebke Petersen & Liane Ströbel
2013 Sitting, standing, and lying in frames: A frame-based approach to posture verbs. In Guram Bezhanishvili, Sebastian Löbner, Vincenzo Marra & Frank Richter (eds.), Selected papers of the 9th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (LNCS 7758), 73–93. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Gamerschlag, Thomas, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen
(eds.) 2014 Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gangemi, Aldo, Nicola Guarino, Claudio Masolo, Alessandro Oltramari & Luc Schneider
2002 Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Asunción Gómez-Pérez & V. Richard Benjamins (eds.), Knowledge engineering and knowledge management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web (13th International Conference, EKAW 2002), 166–181. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gawron, Jean M
2009 The lexical semantics of extent verbs. Unpublished manuscript, San Diego State University. http://​www​-rohan​.sdsu​.edu​/~gawron​/submitted​_spatial​_aspect​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila
1999 Russisch byt’ als funktionale und/oder lexikalische Kategorie. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 141, 1–39. ZAS, Berlin.Google Scholar
Gerling, Martin & Norbert Orthen
1979 Deutsche Zustands- und Bewegungsverben: Eine Untersuchung zu ihrer semantischen Struktur und Valenz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas
2010 The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, Robert L. & Lawrence W. Barsalou
1998 Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition 651. 231–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guarino, Nicola
1992 Concepts, attributes, and arbitrary relations: Some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data and Knowledge Engineering 81. 249–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 The ontological level: Revisiting 30 years of knowledge representation. In Alex Borgida, Vinay Chaudhri, Paolo Giorgini & Eric Yu (eds.), Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications, 52–67. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin
1999 Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. In Tanya Mathews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), SALT IX, 127–144. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, E. Graham
1995 Stativity, genericity, and temporal reference. Rochester: University of Rochester dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Ingrid
1995 Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen: Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und prädikativer Komplemente. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kegl, July & Christiane Fellbaum
1989 An analysis of obligatory adjuncts: Evidence from the class of measure verbs. Proceedings of ESCOL 1988 (Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics), 275–288.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher
1999 Projecting the adjective. The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
2007 Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 301. 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Beth Levin
2008 Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse, 156–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally
2005 Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81(2). 345–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kersten, Alan W., Robert L. Goldstone & Alexandra Schaffert
1998 Two competing attentional mechanisms in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 241. 1437–1458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klooster, Wim G
1978 Much in Dutch. Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 217–228.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew
2010 The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(4). 285–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1998 The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutscher, Silvia & Eva Schultze-Berndt
2007 Why a folder lies in the basket although it is not lying: The semantics and use of German positional verbs with inanimate Figures. Linguistics 45(5/6). 983–1028.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter
2005 The temperature paradox as evidence for a presuppositional analysis of definite descriptions. Linguistic Inquiry 361. 127–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
2005 Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian
1979 Intensionale Verben und Funktionalbegriffe. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1990 Wahr neben Falsch: Duale Operatoren als die Quantoren natürlicher Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011a Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3). 279–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b Functional concepts and frames. http://​semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/jI1NGEwO/Google Scholar
2013 Understanding semantics, 2nd edn. New York, London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Evidence for frames from human language. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94), 23–68. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia
2003 Die logische Form von Kopula-Sätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Na, Younghee
1986 The conventionalization of semantic distinctions. Papers from the general session at the twenty-second meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 166–178.Google Scholar
Newman, John
(ed.) 2002 The Linguistics of sitting, standing and lying. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osswald, Rainer & Robert D. Van Valin Jr
2014 FrameNet, frame structure, and the syntax-semantics interface. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94), 125–156. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, Wiebke
2007 Decomposing concepts with frames. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 21. 151–170.Google Scholar
Petersen, Wiebke & Thomas Gamerschlag
2014 Why chocolate eggs can taste old but not oval: A frame-theoretic analysis of inferential evidentials. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 94), 199–220. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piñon, Christopher
2008 Aspectual composition with degrees. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse, 183–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka
2008 Lexicalized meaning and the internal structure of events. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin
2000 Classifying single argument verbs. In Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane B. Grimshaw (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 269–304. Amsterdam:Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, 21–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1990 Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel
2005 Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 281. 687–737. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothmayr, Antonia
2009 The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steinitz, Renate
1999 Die Kopula ‘werden’ und die Situationstypen. Zeitschrift für Sprach­wissenschaft 181. 121–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E
1990 From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1996 Fictive motion in language and “ception.” In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 211–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1957 Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Åke
1984 The verbs of perception: A typological study. In Bryan Butterworth, Bernhard Comrie & Östen Dahl (eds.), Explanations for language universals, 123–162. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Verbs of perception. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1294–1309. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J
2010 Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike
1997 Zahl und Numerale: Eine Untersuchung zur Korrelation konzeptueller und sprachlicher Strukturen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Woods, William A
1975 What’s in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In Daniel G. Bobrow & Allan M. Collins (eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science, 35–82. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
1996 Lexical categories. Theoretical Linguistics 221. 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Löbner, Sebastian
2021. Frames at the Interface of Language and Cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics 7:1 ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.