English verbs as semantic net Christane fellbaum Verbs arguably the most important lexical and synatic category

of a language. All English sentences must contain at least one verb, but as grammatical sentences with :dummy subjects like it is snowing show, they need not a contain a (refrential_ noun. Many linguists have argued for a model of sentence meanings in which verbs occupy the core position and function as the central organizers of sentences (Chafe, 1970; Fillmore, 1968; and others) the word provides the relational and semantic framework fro its sentence. Its predicate-argument structure (or subcategorixation frame) specifies the possible synatilc structure of the sentences in which it can occur. The linking of lnoun argument with thematic roles of cases, such as INSTRRUMENT, determines the different meaning of the events or states denoted by the sentences and the selectional restrictions specify the semantic properties of the noun classes that can flesh out the frame. This synatic and semantic information is generally thought to be part of the verbs lexical entry that is to say part of the information about the verb that is stored in speaker;s mental lexicion category that is most difficult to study. Even thought grammatical English sentences require a verb thought not necessaribly a noun the language has far fewer verb then nouns. For example the Collins English dictionary lists 43,636 different nouns and 14,190 different verbs. Verbs are more polysemous than mnouns: the noun is Collins have on the average 1.74 sences, whereas verbs average 2.11 sences2 The higher polysemy of verb suggests that verb meanings are more flexible than noun meanings. Verbs can change their meanings depending kon the kinds of noun arguments with which they occur whereas the meanings of noun tend to be more stable in the presence of different verbs. The most frequently used verbs (have, be, run, make, set, go, take, and others) are also the most polysemous, and their meanings often depend heavily on the nouns with which thdy co-occur. For example, dictionary differentiate between the seces of have in

sentences like I have Mercedes and I have a headache. The difference is less due to the polysemy of have, however, then to the concrete of abstract nature of its objects. In the case of such polysemous verbs as beat, meanings differences are determined less by the semantics of the verbs arguments then by different elaborations of one or two common core components shared by the most sence of beat. Different sences of beat occur in very different semantic domains:{beat, strike, hit} is a contact verb;{beat, flatten} is a verb change; (beat, throbe, pulse} is a motion verb; {beat, defeat} is a comption verb;{beat, flog, punish} and {beat, circumvent{the system} are verb in the domain of social intraction; (beat, shape, do metalwork} is a cration verb;{beat, baffle} is a cigniation verb;(beat, stir, whisk}belongs to domain of coking verbs: and { beat, mark} is a kind of motion performed to indicate the counts in music.

Synonymy few trulyu synonymous verbs, such as shut and close, can be found in the lexicon the number depends on how loose a definiation of synonymy on adopts. The best example are probally verbs concerpt that are represented by both an Anglo-Sexon and a Greco-Latinate word: begin-commerce , end-terminate, rise-ascend, blink-nictate, behead-decapitate, spit-expectorate. In general the Greco-Letinate verbs are used in more formal or technical speech register: buy vs purchase, sweet vs perspire or shave vs epilate. Cruse (1986-268) points out that frequently only one member of such a synonym pair tends to be felicious in a given context: where have you hidden dads slippers? sounds more natural then where have you concealed dads slippers>and subtle meanings differences can show up in different selectional restrictios. For example, rise fall can select as an argument such abstract entires as the temperature, ut their close synonymous ascend or descend cannot. Because many apparently synonymous verbs exhibit such differences verbs synsets in wordnet often contain peripharastic expressions rather than lexicalized synonyms.

These periphares break down a sunoymous verb into an entire verb phrase and thereby often reflect the way in which the verb has ecome lexicalized by showing constituents that have been conflated in the verb: for example a denominal verb such as hammer is listed with the parenthetical gloss hit with a hammer; the conflated verb denotes the function of the noun. The periphares indicate the basic action and the role of the noun (material and instrument) with which action is performed. The synonymous expressions of deadjectival verbs often have the from make or become +some adjectives: {whiten, become white},{enrich, make rich}, etc. thus they reflect the fact that these verbs are for the most past verbs of change. The synonymous expressions of amny verbs show that they are manner elaborations of a more basic verb: {seim, travel through water}, { mumble, talk indistinctly), (saut, fry briefly), etc. Representing the meanings of verbs is difficult for any theory of lexical semantics, but especially fo far wordner, which differs from previous approaches in avoiding a semantic decomposition in favor of a relational analysis. Decomepostional vs Relaional semantic analysis Most approaches to erb semantics have been attempts at decomepaostions in one from or another. Early proponents of semantics of secomepostions (Kats & Fisor, 1963; Katz, 1972; Gruber, 1976; Lakoff, 1972; Schank, 1972; Miler and jhonson-laired, 1976; and other} whether in a generative or or an interpretive framework, argued for the existence of a finite set of universal semantic-conceptual components(or primes or primitives or atomic preidicates or in case of noun markers) into which or lexical items could be exhaustively decomposed .among the example one finds discussed in the literature \, most have been English verbs. The best known example of the decompositions of a verbs is jprobably McCawelys (1968) analysis of kill into CAUSE TO BECOME NOT ALIVE, which has been much discussed and criticized (Fodor, 1970; Shibatani, 1972; and others) Although semantic decompostins has been judged by some to be an inadequate theory of semantic represention (Chomsky 1972 and other)more recent approaches have taken a similar path to semantic analysis. Both Jackendoff (1983) and Talmy (1985) have proposed an analysis of verbs in terms of such conceptual categories as EVENTS,

STATE, ACTION, PATH, MANNER, PLACE, etc. for example talmy analyses the verbs roll as being a lexicalized conflation including componenets of categoriesthat can be expressed not only by verbs, byt aalso by operators like NEG. Relational demantic analysis differs from semantic decompoations primarily in taking lexical items, rather then hypothetically irreducible meanings atoms, as the smallest unit of analysis. Thus relational analysis has the advantage that its units can be thought of as entires in speakers mental dictionaries. However, the relational analysis adopted in wordnet shares some aspects of decompositions. Lexical Entailment In logic, entailment or strict implication is properly defined for propositions a propositions p entiles a propostions q if and only if there is no conceivable state of affairs that could make p true and q if and only if there is no conceivable state of affairs that could make p true and q false. Entailment is semantic relation because it involves reffrence to the states of affairs that P and Q represent. The term will be generalized here to refer to the relation between two verbs v1 and v2 that holds when the sentence someone v1 logically entails the sentence someone v2; this use of entailment can be called lexical entailment. Thus, for example snore lexically entails sleep because the sentence. He is snoring entails he is sleeping; the second sentence necessarily holds if the first one does. Lexical entailment is a unilateral relation: if a verb v1 entails another verb v2 then it cannot be that case that v2 entails v1. the exception is that verbs cab be said to be mutually entailing, they must also be synonymous that is they must have the same sence. For example one might say both that The germans beat the Argentinians entails the german beat the argentinians and that the germans defeated the argentians and that the germans defeated the argerntians entails the german beat the argentinians. However we find such statements rather unnatural. Negation reverse the directions of entailment: not sleeping entails not snoring but not snoring does not entail not sleeping. The converse of entailment of contradiction: if the sentence. He is snoring entails He id sleeping then he is snoring also contradictis the sentence he is not sleeping (Kempson, 1977)

Hyponymy Among Verbs The sentence frame used to test hyponymy between nouns. An x is a y, is not suitable for verbs, because it requires that x and y nouns: to ample is a kind of to walk is not a felicitous sentence. Even when this formula is used with verbs in the gerundive form there is a noticeable difference between noun and verbs. Although people are quite comfortable with statement like A horse is an animal of A spade is a garden tool, they are likely to eject such statement as Ambling is walking or Mumbling is talking where the suprordinate is not compained by some qualifications. The semantic disrincion between two verbs id different from the feature that distingushis two nouns in a hyonymic relation. An examination of verb hyponyms and their superordinates shows that iexiclaizrions invoves many kinds of semantic elaborations across different semantic fields . for example Talmy (1985) analysis of motion verbs treats them as conflations of move and such semantic components as MANNER and CAUSE exampalfied by slide and pull respectively. To these components could be added SPEED (encoded in run stroll) of CONVEYENCE or displacement (bus, truck, bike). Similarly English verb denoting different kinds of hitting express the DEGREE OF FORCE used by the agent (chop, slam, whack, swat, rap, tap, peck, etc.). some verbs refer to different degrees of INTENSITY of the action or state (drowse, doze, sleep) Since the aim is to study relations between verbs, rather then between the building blocks that make them up, the amny different kinds of elaborations that distinguish a verb hyponyym from its superordinate have been marged into a manner relation that Fellbaum and Miller (1990) have dubbed troponymy (from the greek trops, manner or fashion) troponymy relations between two verbs can be expressed by the formula to v1 is to v2 in some partivular manner. manner is interpreted here more loosely then in Talmys work for example and troponymy can be related to their super ordinates along many semantic demensions. Subsets of particulars kinds of manner tend to cluster within a given semantic field. Among compition verbs, for example, many troponmy are conflaltions of the basic verb fight with nouns denoting the ocaions for, of from of the fight: battle, war, trouney, joust, duel, feud, etc. troponymy of communications verbs often encode the

speakers INTENTION or motivation for communicating as in ecamine, confess of preach or the MEDIUM of communication: fac, e-mail, phone, telex.