Presentational capacity of English transitive verbs: On some semantic and FSP aspects of SEIZE
Abstract
178
Full text
Presentational capacity of English transitive verbs: On some semantic and FSP aspects of SEIZE Martin Adam (Brno) ABSTRACT Even though anumber of verbs, owing to their syntactic-semantic characteristics, tend to operate primarily in Presentation or Quality Scales respectively, most verbs generally appear to be capable of acting within both the scales. In authentic communication, the sentence perspective is determined by various criteria: apart from the relative “weightiness” of the postverbal modification, it is especially the context-independence of the subject along with the presentational capacity of the verb that plays acrucial role. This paper sets out to explore the syntactic and semantic qualities of the transitive verb seize. Making use of two large corpora, the proposed case study tries to delimit under what conditions seize tends to operate in one of the two dynamic semantic scales. Model sentences are contrasted in terms of their presentational/qualitative features with special regard to the phenomenon of subject— verb semantic affinity. KEYWORDS FSP, presentation, quality, verb, transitive DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2019.2.4 1. OPENING REMARKS Drawing on Firbas’s insightful observations (e.g. Firbas 1975: 45–70; 1992: 41–65, 77ff; 1995: 5–8), recent research into the theory of functional sentence perspective (FSP) has demonstrated that the syntactic-semantic characteristics of the English transitional1 verb play acrucial role within the overall sentence perspective (e.g. Dušková 2008: 67–77; 2015: 256–68; Chamonikolasová 2010: 86–93; Adam 2013: 51–53, 157ff; 2014: 179–194; 2016: 9–15; Chamonikolasová et al. 2015: 9–18). In the framework of the theory of FSP, sentences implement either Presentation or Quality Scale (summarized e.g. in Firbas 1992: 66–69); it follows that— under favourable conditions— most verbs generally appear to be capable of acting within both the dynamic semantic scales. However, it has become clear that certain verbs tend to operate in one of the scales, mainly thanks to their syntactic and semantic properties (e.g. the verb categories related to transitivity, complementation, etc.). Thus, for instance, verbs of existence and appearance manifest an obvious inclination towards presentation, while others, such as verbs of motion, appear to be capable of acting within both the scales depending on their syntactic semantic configuration. Incidentally, it is therefore more precise to speak 1 Unlike the term “transitive” used in connection to the transitive character of the verb (syntactic valency) elsewhere in the text, the term “transitional” refers to the FSP concept of the transition (i.e. the transitional unit operating between the theme and the rheme).
MARTIN ADAM 179 of “verbs in presentation or quality use” rather than of the simplifying distinction of purely presentation or quality verbs. Transitional verbs of either character act, as it were, as “pivot pins” around which the remaining sentence elements are arranged, thus giving the communicative unit one of the two perspectives (Adam 2013: 162–165). Aptly elaborating on the famous appearance of the two-faced Ancient Roman god named Janus (Adam 2016: 8–9), the god of transitions (gates, doors, passages etc.), who was able to look both to the past and to the future, Firbas (1992: 91) stresses the transitional verb’s “capability to point in two directions— in that of the Th and in that of the Rh— and simultaneously to link the Th and the non-Th”; this special character, in Firbas’s opinion, places the transitional verb in the centre of the sentence, which “serves both as afield of syntactic relations and as afield of FSP relations” (ibid.). Such atwo-sided character of the transitional verb may also be readily observed in the area of the sentence perspective as such, in its essential communicative orientation: whereas the typically transitional verb represents the solid centre of the sentence (hence the “pivot pin” idea in Adam 2016: 8), the theme and the rheme take different positions under given circumstances (FSP factors), altering the two spheres. The current research findings have shown that the most promising step at this point is the case analysis of individual verbs that appear in both the scales within the corpora under examination. It is believed that investigating their syntactic-semantic properties in context may shed light not only on potential common denominators but also on functional differences. 2. RESEARCH TOPIC, METHOD AND CORPUS The present paper offers acorpus-based analysis the aim of which is to examine the syntactic and semantic qualities of the verb seize in different FSP contexts, indicating under what conditions it tends to operate in one of the two dynamic semantic scales. (seize was repeatedly identified as one of those verbs that can appear in both dynamic semantic scales; see e.g. Adam 2013: 97–105; 2016: 7–9, 14ff.) It is necessary to note that the verb seize, obviously in line with its transitivity, displays atraceable inclination to occur predominantly in the Quality Scale; its operation in presentative contexts is therefore of paramount importance since it can adumbrate the subtle processes and factors that determine the perspective of the sentence in the given syntactic and semantic coordinates. Another related aspect that has proved to play asignificant role in the complex phenomenon of sentence perspective is the SV semantic affinity; the point is that transitive verbs are, by nature, prototypically predisposed to operate within the Quality Scale and their latent presentation potential can be triggered by their semantic affinity with the subject (see e.g. Firbas 1992: 60–61; Svoboda 2005: 225ff; Dušková 1999: 247ff; 2008: 72–73; Adam 2013: 109–131). To sum up, the corpus-based contrastive analysis carried out in the scope of the present study should provide an answer to the following research question: What, in terms of its syntactic-semantic characteristics, predisposes the English transitional verb seize to serve in the Presentation and Quality Scales respectively? Acontrastive analysis of one verb capable of operating in two distinct sentence perspectives seems
180 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 to be an auspicious stride in depicting the distinctive features of the verb’s tendency to operate in the Presentation and/or Quality Scale sentences. Due to the current absence of atagged English FSP-oriented corpus and for the sake of astatistically relevant size of the corpus (cf. Chamonikolasová et al. 2015: 9–18), model sentences, extracted from the British National Corpus (henceforward BNC) through the Sketch Engine concordance as well as the English-Czech parallel corpus InterCorp (abbreviated hereafter IC), will be contrasted and discussed in terms of their presentational/qualitative features. The sample sentences were selected randomly from the corpus-driven data. More specifically, firstly all sentences featuring the verb lemma “seize” were extracted electronically irrespective of the FSP structure of the sentences. The search was carried out in order to receive acomplete list of such sentences; nevertheless, to make the corpus selection statistically representative as well as manageable in terms of the contrastive analysis the results were then thinned at random to 2,500 items in both the sub-corpora (5,000 in total), which then constitute the research sample. For the purposes of the FSP analysis, individual distributional fields were ascribed corresponding dynamic semantic functions and presented in agraphically simplified chart (the number of the token in the electronic corpus, the preverbal section— the dynamic semantic functions of the Phenomenon (Ph) or the Bearer of Quality (B) depending on the type of scale, the transitional verb— functioning as Presentation (Pr) or Quality (Q), and finally, the postverbal section featuring the Setting (Set) or Specification (Sp) respectively (Firbas 1992: 66ff; cf. Chamonikolasová and Adam 2005: 59–69; Chamonikolasová 2010: 86–94). Apart from the number of the hit in the first column, the table displays the sentence containing the query lemma (i.e. seize), around which the rest of the text is centrally split up, thus providing the necessary context. If needed, the context available may be easily expanded in the electronic online version. Below, in Table 1, is asample demonstration of the corpora (the rhematic elements are in bold print): Ph / B Pr / Q Set / Sp BNC2484 into the frost-gleamed blue of the night. An idea seized her. For her life’s sake Chesarynth turned BNC218 Rioms. In April 1295, however, the French seized the town after ariot among the English troops. BNC224 fog was thinner out here. Suddenly acoughing fit seized him, and astab of agony lanced through Table 1.Corpus sample The FSP analysis itself had to be executed manually. As regards its statistical results, the sentences which implement the Presentation Scale amount to amere 1.28 percent (64 items out of 5,000 in total); this finding is associated with the verb’s transitivity— and, consequently, with its natural inclination to operate in the Quality Scale. The remaining communicative fields are logically represented by Quality Scale sentences (98.72 percent)— for details see Table 2 below:
MARTIN ADAM 181 Corpus Seize (total) Seize in Pr Scale Seize in Q Scale BNC 2,500 27 1.08% 2,473 98.92% InterCorp 2,500 37 1.48% 2,463 98.52% Total 5,000 64 1.28% 4,936 98.72% Table 2.Corpus findings 3. PRESENTATION VS QUALITY The relatively indistinct borderline between the Presentation and Quality Scales has raised anumber of questions in recent FSP research (Firbas 1999: 305–317; Dušková 1999: 249–262; 2015: 202–208, 256–268; Svoboda 2005: 225–230; 2006: 215–220; Chamonikolasová and Adam 2005: 59–69; Chamonikolasová 2010: 86–93; Adam 2013: 157–165; 2016: 10–18; Drápela 2012: 43–49; Rohrauer 2015: 148ff, 162–164; Brůhová and Malá 2017: 19–38). Whatever the main issues, all the authors, as amatter of fact, ultimately attempt to solve intricacies associated with FSP interpretation, and the quality vs presentation scale distinction in particular. In this respect, perhaps the most troublesome configuration of the theme-rheme structure is posed by sentences that are potentially capable of both apresentation and qualitative interpretation, viz. communicative units featuring an initial rhematic subject (e.g., Panic seized me). Deriving from the interplay of all the FSP factors involved (viz. context, linear modification and semantics in written discourse, accompanied by intonation in spoken discourse) the sentence perspective then reflects the distribution of the degrees of communicative dynamism. Cf. the two possible FSP interpretations of identical syntactic structures below (individual units display the basic Rh-Tr-Th structure and are ascribed corresponding dynamic semantic functions; the rhematic units are presented in bold): (1) Panic (Rh | Ph) seized (Tr | Pr) me (Th | Set). Presentation Scale (2) Panic (Th | B) seized (Tr | Q) me (Rh | Sp). Quality Scale In example (1) the second most recurring subtype of presentation sentence pattern, viz. that with arhematic subject in the initial, i.e. preverbal position, is exemplified. Such aconfiguration is perceived as the prototypical, canonical type of presentation (Dušková et al. 1988: 62, 531–532). In it, the initial sentence element is represented by acontext-independent subject, which is only then followed (in concord with the requirements of the English word order principles) by the verb expressing existence or appearance on the scene (cf. Dušková 1999: 248–250); the sentence may also open with ascene-setting temporal or spatial thematic adverbial, the position of which is rather volatile. As aresult, the end-focus principle is not applied. It should be noted, however, that sentences with arhematic subject in apreverbal position are, as arule, considered unmarked by native speakers of English. Example (2), perhaps somewhat artificial, yet contextually plausible, presents asentence that implements the Quality Scale: under the circumstances, the contextdependent subject (Panic) serves as aBearer of Quality and is elaborated by the most
182 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 dynamic element of the communicative unit (rheme), i.e. the Specification (me), the possible context being perhaps acontrast between the speaker and another person (…me, not him, etc.). As mentioned above, seize represents atransitive verb and so prototypically operates in the Quality Scale. In ex. (2), something new, decontextualized is said about the subject, and so the highest degree of communicative dynamism is carried by the direct object (me). Yet, it must be noted that it is sentence (1) that is extracted as an authentic piece of language from the corpus, not example (2), which has been modelled for the sake of comparison only. Generally speaking, the English verb can operate in the Presentation Scale if it “expresses the existence or appearance on the scene explicitly or with sufficient implicitness” (Firbas 1995: 65; cf. Adam 2013: 107–115). Whereas the explicit presentative verbs represent arelatively homogeneous set typically recruited e.g. from the verb classes of the verbs of existence/appearance on the scene, verbs of emission, verbs of creation, verbs of motion and the like (Adam 2013: 115–116, 160, 164; for afine-grained classification of verbs see also Levin 1993: 250ff), the verbs that express presentation implicitly are semantically much more varied. As mentioned above, the common denominator that is capable of enhancing their presentative potential is the semantic affinity between the context independent subject and the presentative verb (Firbas 1992: 60–62; Svoboda 2005: 224ff; Dušková 1999: 248ff; Adam 2011: 23–30; Drápela 2012: 43–49). Such SV semantic affinity is typically observed in the fields of natural/supernatural phenomena, fauna and flora, sensory actions, inherent qualities of inanimate objects, etc. (Adam 2013: 109–116, 121ff). Cf. example (3) below:2 (3) Soon (Th | Set), two cups of tea (Rh | Ph) were steaming (Tr | Pr) on the table (Th | Set). The verbal action is so semantically inherent to the subject (cups of tea— steaming) that it is the subject that takes over the communicative prominence at the expense of power of the verbal content (cf. Adam 2013: 113–115; 2016: 7–18). The static semantics of the verb— even if expressing aspecific type of action— is reduced to that of presentation; in other words, the semantic content of the verbal element is so natural of the agent employed that the full verb serves to denote aform of existence or appearance on the scene. 2 Other subtypes of SV semantic affinity may be illustrated by the following examples extracted from Adam 2013: 146ff (the rhematic subject is in bold, the transitional verb is underlined, and the sort of affinity is specified in the parentheses): Adark spidery shadow flashed across the gardens on the hillside. (sensory effects— visual, acoustic, olfactory, etc.); Aghost of asmile hovered on Mrs Swallow’s lips. (facial expressions and bodily feelings); Alight breeze sprang up. (natural and supernatural phenomena); Abird suddenly chirped from the branch of atree. (fauna and flora), etc.
MARTIN ADAM 183 4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION As clarified at the beginning of the present paper, the current research is intentionally focused on the conditions and circumstances that make it possible for atransitive verb to operate within the Presentation Scale, viz. the verb seize. The analysis below will thus compare and contrast authentic sentences with seize that were detected in both the dynamic semantic scales: the presentation and Quality Scales respectively. Special attention will be paid both to their syntactic characteristics and to the potential role of SV semantic affinity. Table (3) below features arandomized selection of the corpus hits (not acomplete list) in which the sentences implement the Presentation Scale (for the sake of transparency, the rhematic Phenomena— the context-independent subjects— are in bold): Corpus Ph Pr Set BNC2116 Asudden fear seized him: (…) BNC2324 Awave of panic seized her. BNC2381 Agreat longing for Toby seized me. BNC2484 …, an idea seized her. BNC224 …, acoughing fit seized him, (…) BNC1453 …, another spasm seized him. BNC1705 Such adespair seized him. BNC1962 Alarm seized her. BNC2090 …, asudden, hot wave of panic seized her. IC24 Aghastly stage-fright seized him. IC25 Terror seized me. IC26 Atemptation seized him. IC30 Atouch of hysteria seized her. IC31 An impulse of generosity seized him. Table 3.Seize: Pr-scale corpus examples It is obvious that all the hits given in Table 3 are marked by apeculiar syntactic structure: the verbs are transitive, yet the direct objects do not perform the dynamic semantic function of Specification (which would be theoretically assumable), but that of aSetting. Furthermore, all these Settings are invariably realized as single-word personal pronouns (him, her); such striking conciseness of the postverbal section definitely has to do with the sentence perspective. The point is that it is the context-independent subjects that carry the highest degree of communicative dynamism. Consequently, the sentences are perspectived towards their subjects and implement the Presentation Scale. As has been recalled above, research has convincingly indicated that in presentation sentences with rhematic preverbal subjects it is often the semantic affinity between the subject and the verb that plays acrucial, if not decisive, role in the sentence perspective (Adam 2013: 118ff; 2014; cf. Dušková 2015: 267–8). Similarly here, the subjects are unan-
184 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 imously represented by relatively strong mental, physical and spiritual phenomena that are related to human body and mind, both positive and negative: panic, thought, idea, demon, cramp, and the like. In other words, “seizing somebody or something” is the modus vivendi of these entities and so they can implicitly express existence on the scene. It seems that it is the SVsemantic affinity that made it possible for the transitive verb seize to present aphenomenon on the scene; without the obvious affinity, the sentences would be interpreted as those implementing the Quality Scale. In the sample sentences in Table 3, the action is obviously so semantically inherent to the subjects (i.e. so strongly subject-related) that it is the subject that takes over the communicative prominence at the expense of power of the verbal content. The static semantics of the verb seize then— even if expressing aspecific type of action— is reduced to that of presentation. In other words, the semantic content of the verbal element is so natural of the agents employed that the full verb serves to denote aform of existence or appearance on the scene in an implicit way (cf. the Firbasian concept of implicit expression of existence/appearance, especially in Firbas 1992: 88–89; 1995: 65). It follows that the verb that operates in semantic affinity with its subject semantically supports the character of the subject: one may readily say that seizing is an inbred way of existence, or rather appearance, for coming diseases, bodily symptoms, mental or spiritual seizures, etc. Table 4 below offers afull, exhaustive enumeration of all the context independent phenomena traced in the corpus that are presented on the scene through the verb seize. In the table, the individual rhematic subjects are classified into several categories in terms of their lexical semantics (if the item appeared more than once in the corpus, its occurrence in given in the parentheses): Semantic field Rh (Phenomena) Pr-verb fear panic (8x), terror (6x), fear (4x), despair (3x), grief (2x), anxiety (2x), alarm, restlessness, self-pity, agoraphobia, aghastly stage-fright, afeeling of stinging melancholy, ablack rage, atouch of hysteria seize desire desire (2x), longing, loathing ambition, temptation, areckless daring physiological process acoughing fit / about of coughing (2x), spasm, shudders, fever, adeadly nausea, climax mental process idea (3x), thought, madness, religious mania spiritual power demon, evil spirit body apair of hands, several pairs of strong grey hands, hot small fingers, agrip stronger and colder than iron Table 4.Semantic fields of the Phenomena presented by seize Obviously, all the context-independent rhematic subjects outlined in Table 4 above report astriking semantic affinity with the verb seize. Their common semantic denominator can be ascribed alabel of “human, strong, prevailingly negative physical and mental processes”, with fear being by far the most frequent semantic field. Admit-
MARTIN ADAM 185 tedly, even though it is possible to classify the individual Phenomena into anumber of semantic categories, these may at times overlap; incidentally, this observation also testifies to the overall high degree of semantic affinity with the verb. It follows that such SV affinity thus constitutes one of the vital features that enhance, if not determine, the ability of the transitive verb seize to present aPhenomenon on the scene. Furthermore, the sentences under examination display an extremely analogous minimal syntactic pattern: Phenomenon— seized— pronoun: Panic seized me / Terror seized her, and the like. Whereas the preverbal part invariably features the context-independent subject, whether realized by asingle word or developed by an attribute, the post-verbal section is, on the contrary, extremely short, and often minimal. On top of that, the surprisingly unified set of the forms of the verb seize (viz. the past simple tense seized) also adds to the overall uniform character of the sentences under scrutiny. To sum up, the dynamic semantic functions of sentence elements seem to be closely related to the lexical semantics of both the verb and the subject, in the SV semantic affinity in particular. In the area of FSP research, apart from the interplay of the three factors (context, linear modification and semantics), there are two more aspects that may corroborate (or, alternatively, refute) asentence interpretation: (i) intonation (above all the placement of the nuclear stress on the rhematic subject in English), which of course joins the interpretation in spoken discourse only, and (ii) the translation to another language, such as Czech, which— owing to different FSP priorities— primarily reflects the gradual rise of the degrees of communicative dynamism in unmarked sentences. Thus, by scanning (potential) Czech equivalents that strictly follow the end-focus principle one may utilize another indicator of the FSP interpretation. Table 5 below contrasts the two language mutations extracted from the parallel corpus InterCorp (the non-parallel corpus BNC logically does not provide translations): English original Czech translation Despair seized me. Zmocnilo se mě zoufalství. Panic seized her. Propadla panice. Terror seized her. Zachvátil ji děs. …as an extraneous wave of anxiety for the child seized him. …, kterého popadla nepatřičná úzkost odítě. Self-pity seized him. Upadl do sebelítosti. Now about of coughing seized him. Vzápětí se rozkašlal. For the first time in my life afeeling of overpowering stinging melancholy seized me. Poprvé vživotě se mě zmocnil drtivý pocit bolestně doléhající melancholie. Aghastly stage-fright seized him. Zmocnila se ho příšerná tréma. … until heroin seized her. … askončila uheroinu. Atouch of hysteria seized her. …, zvedla se vní vlna skoro až jakési hysterie. Atemptation seized him. Ale najednou dostal jiný nápad. Table 5.English Pr sentences and their Czech translation equivalents (InterCorp)
186 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 The mere functional comparison of the two counterparts reveals the two types of linear modifications in aclear-cut juxtaposition. Whereas the English presentation sentences display their rhemes (context-independent subjects) logically in the initial position due to the requirements of English grammar, actually violating the end-focus, the Czech translation equivalents place their most dynamic communicative units invariably in the final position in line with the Czech word order principles. Thus, the FSP interpretation of the English communicative fields— that of Presentation Scale— is reflected, and supported, by the comparative analysis. Incidentally, this interpretation is equally applicable to all the cases offered by InterCorp— in all the Czech translations of English presentation sentences the rheme is placed in the final position and thus reflects the gradual rise of communicative dynamism. In accordance with what has been said above, Dušková (2008: 72–73) also mentions semantic affinity observed between the verb and the subject as an accompanying phenomenon of presentation sentences. Commenting on various possibilities favouring the presentational interpretation, she claims that the presentation verbs manifesting affinity may be— with identical effect— functionally replaced by verbs that express existence/appearance on the scene in apurely explicit manner. Thus, the corpus sentence Asudden fear seized him, for instance, could be analogously expressed by means of an explicit presentation verb (4), by alocative adverbial construction in the object position (5), by apassive construction (6), not to speak of an existential there-construction proper (7). Cf. the paraphrased modifications: (4) Asudden fear appeared in him / his mind. (5) He had asudden fear in him / his mind. (6) He was suddenly seized by fear. (7) Suddenly, there was afear in him / his mind. Aparallel transformation is naturally unheard-of in the sentences implementing the Quality Scale; in them, something new is said about the context-dependent Bearer of Quality and the predication does not express existence/appearance on the scene any more. It follows that the verb(s) used cannot be replaced by aPr-verb without changing the FSP of the sentence. The corpus data, of course, display atotally opposite set of semantic-syntactic features in the case of seize sentences implementing the Quality Scale. However, to get acomplete picture of the semantic and FSP aspects of the verb seize, it is also necessary to discuss this parallel (and actually much more frequent) possibility of sentence perspective. Firstly, cf. arandomized selection of sample sentences identified in the corpus: Corpus B Q Sp BNC141 … the rebels who seized an air force base are at astalemate. BNC164 … the order went out to seize the unpublished texts and plates. BNC218 In April 1295, however, the French seized the town after ariot among the English troops.