A Study of the Semantic Features of “Obtaining” Verbs in English

A Study of the Semantic Features of “Obtaining” Verbs in

English

Mei Wang

( Foreign Language Department, The Engineering & Technical College of Chengdu University of Technology, Leshan, Sichuan Province,

614000 )

Abstract: “Obtaining” verbs depict a person taking temporary possession of an object. They signal an event of the transferring of one thing from its original owner to a potential possessor. Based on theories of Cognitive Semantics, this paper intends to probe into the semantic features of English “obtaining” verbs and the different profi les, background frames entailed in different words, hoping to shed light on the further study of the syntactic performance of this category of verbs.

Keywords: Cognitive Semantics; “obtaining” verbs; semantic feature

1 Introduction

“Obtaining” verbs depicts a pervasive human behavior of getting hold of something by effort or gaining possession of something. There is an abundance of “obtaining” verbs in English due to our experience of getting something or object transferring. We try to obtain something by striving, hard work, providing service, exertions. Thus we use different words to encode different ways of obtaining: (a) obtaining through illegal ways: steal, rob, burgle, pirate; (b) obtaining by borrowing: borrow, loan, rent; (c) obtaining by paying or trying: buy, inherit, earn, gain, acquire, and win; (d) obtaining by exchanging: trade, exchange, swap, pawn. In this paper, I analysis the semantic features of English “obtaining” verbs form the perspective of Cognitive Semantics and argue that each “obtaining” verb invokes a unique event frame which is rooted in our daily experience and “obtaining” verbs lexically determine which aspects of their frame-semantic knowledge are obligatorily profi led. 2 “Obtaining” Verbs and Semantic Frame

As I approach the semantics of “obtaining” verbs from the perspective of Cognitive Semantics, my study draws heavily on the four fundamental principles of Cognitive Semantics (Evans & Green 2006):

①. Language refers not to an objective reality, but to concepts: the conventional meanings associated with words and other linguistic units are seen as relating to thoughts and ideas.

②. Semantic structure is conceptual structure.

③. Meaning representation is encyclopedic: words (and other linguistic units) are “points of access” to vast repositories of knowledge concerning a particular lexical concept.

④. The language itself does not encode meaning. Instead, words serve as “prompts” for the construction of meaning. Meaning construction is conceptualization.

As meaning is conceptual in essence, i.e. a word does not refer in a straight line to a physical world outside independent of human beings, and instead it refers to a conceptual level in our mind resulting from our sensor experience in the world. This is true of “obtaining” verbs. So their meanings mirror the conceptualization of a “gaining the possession of something” event. Their semantic frames are thus built upon the human

experience. Fillmore (1982: 111) proposes that the frame is understood as:

any system of concepts related in such a way that to understand any one of them you have to understand the whole structure in which it fi ts; when one of the things in such a structure is introduced into a text, or into a conversation, all of the others are automatically made available.

Therefore, in order to have a comprehensive understanding of “obtaining” verbs, we need to resort to a series of concepts related to them and our encyclopedic knowledge should also be activated. When we think of a buying event, the concepts of buyer, seller, money, market as well as verbal concepts as “pay” and “cost” are activated. In a robbing event, the concepts of the robbed object, the robber, the victim are also made available in our mind to form a better understanding of “robbing”.

Besides, I further propose that within the semantic frame invoked by an “obtaining” verb, it is necessary to distinguish a verb sense’s profile (Langacker1987: 118) from the rest of the frame, and I refer to the non-profiled aspect of a frame as the background frame (or base in Langacker’s 1987). A verb’s profi le is what the verb designates or asserts; its background frame is what is taken for granted or presupposed (Goldberg 2008). Thus, the semantic frame of a verb can be illustrated below:

Figure 1. Semantic Frame of a Verb (adapted from Goldberg

2008)

Fillmore (1977) and Langacker(1987) discusses that reference to frames (again, bases for Langacker & Croft) can be used to illuminate meaning relationships between words.I believe that the “obtaining” verbs constitute a special group of verbs because they share the same basic profi le of getting or gaining the possession of something, but each differs in the particulars of the rich background frames involved.

— 53 —Conference Proceedings Citation Index

3. Semantic Features of English “Obtaining” verbs

3.1 Classifi cations of English “Obtaining” Verbs

Levin (1993) in his famous work English Verb Classes and Alternations classifi es English “obtaining” verbs into two types: the “get” verb and the “obtain” verb:

Table 1. Classifi cation of English “Obtaining” Verbs Proposed by

Levin

book buy call cash catch charter choose earn fetch fi nd

Get Verbs

gain gather get hire keep lease leave order phone pick pluck procure pull reach rent reserve save secure shoot

slaughter steal vote win

accept accumulate acquire appropriate borrow cadge Obtain Verbscollect exact grab inherit obtain purchase receive recover

regain retrieve seize select snatch

I argue that Levin’ classification is rough in the sense that

no elaborations are given on the criteria of the classification. Some verbs in this table are verbs of obtaining in their basic senses; others, such as leave, phone, shoot, vote, slaughter, pull, are members of other classes in their basic meanings, but show an extended meaning as verbs of obtaining. Steal verbs are listed because in many situations in which someone obtains something someone loses possession of that thing. Some of these verbs can take a sum of money as their subject; this is only the case for those verbs when the process of obtaining involves a transfer of money.

I found that not all English “obtaining” verbs can participate in the benefactive alteration: a large proportion of them don’t allow a benefactive argument to be realized neither as the first object in the ditransitive construction nor in a for propositional phrase.

I collected 142 “obtaining” verbs from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2004). Combined with the verbs listed by Beth Levin, I classify them into two types according to the criteria that whether they allow benefactive alteration or not:

Table 2. Proposed Classifi cations of English “Obtaining” Verbs

receive accept acquire achieve attain harvest inherit appropriate cadge exact recover regain retrieve seize cash

Receive reserve poach shoplift capture confi scate extract fi lch Verbs

impound kidnap embezzle extort nab pilfer pinch pirate repossess rescue smuggle sponge thieve withdraw abduct plagiarize purloin redeem reclaim burgle cull deplete gullbuy accumulate borrow collect exact grab obtain purchase Buy Verbs

recover select snatch book catch choose earn fetch fi nd gain gather get keep charter hire order pick pluck procure

save secure steal win steal cop sneak wangle

Receive verbs cannot be used in the ditransitive construction. The person who initiates the action to get something is always the beneficiary. We can not receive or accept something for others. These words constitute a large proportion of the English “obtaining” verbs while the buy verbs can appear in the ditransitive construction:

(1) a. His achievement earned him respect and admiration.

— —b. I asked her to fetch me an evening paper.

c. I think I can fi nd you something to do. d. Please gather me some fl owers. e. Will you get me some matches?

f. I have ordered you some new clothes. g. He picked her a rose. h. He plucked her a rose.

i. Choose me a good one, please!

3.2 Participant Roles Profi led by “Obtaining” Verbs

The difference in meanings among “obtaining” verbs can be obvious or subtle. Rob and steal are absolutely different with regard to the rich background frame including such particulars as the ways adopted to obtain and also the force exerted upon the deprived. But verbs like get, gain, earn, obtain, acquire are very close in meaning. Resorting to the method of differentiating profile and background frame, their semantic difference can be illuminated. The idea of getting is common to all these items. We may, indeed, with only a slight change of sense, substitute get for either of them; as, to get or to gain a prize; to get or to obtain an employment; to get or to earn a living; to get or to acquire a language. But what the word presupposes and takes for granted vary slightly: To gain is to get by striving; and as this is often a part of our good fortune, the word gain is peculiarly applicable to whatever comes to us fortuitously. Thus, we gain a victory, we gain a cause, we gain an advantage, etc. To earn is to deserve by labor or service; as, to earn good wages; to earn a triumph. Unfortunately, one does not always get or obtain what he has earned. To obtain implies desire for possession, and some effort directed to the attainment of that which is not immediately within our reach. Whatever we thus seek and get, we obtain, whether by our own exertions or those of others; whether by good or bad means; whether permanently, or only for a time. Thus, a man obtains an employment; he obtains an answer to a letter, etc. To acquire is more limited and specifi c. We acquire what comes to us gradually in the regular exercise of our abilities, while we obtain what comes in any way, provided we desire it. Thus, we acquire knowledge, property, honor, reputation, etc. What we acquire becomes, to a great extent, permanently our own; as, to acquire a language; to acquire habits of industry, etc.

The Obtainer

The obtainer refers to an entity who initiates force on the obtained (the transferred object), thus resulting in a change-of-possession of the obtained. I argue that the obtainers designated by the “obtaining” verbs must have the semantic features of [+ consciousness], [+ controllability] and [+volition], for instance:

(2) a. In 1840, he obtained permission to edit a daily paper. b. Mary accumulated a fortune by hard work.

The existence of those semantic constraints has been challenged by examples such as these:

(3) a. His achievement earned him respect and admiration. (inanimate/intangible object)

b. His lose of four family members in the earthquake gained him some sympathy. (actual event)

International Journal of Technology Management

c. She got me a ticket by distracting me while I was driving. (human)

d. The rain bought us time. (object)

In these examples the obtainer is not a volitional entity. Even when the subject argument is an animate subject, as in (3) c, no volitionality is required. However, these examples are all instances of a particular conventional systematic metaphor, namely. “causal events as transfers”. This metaphor involves understanding causing an effect in an entity as transferring the effect, construed as an object, to the entity. Each of the examples in (3) implies that the subject argument is the cause of the fi rst object argument being affected in some way by “receiving” the second object argument.

Major Variants of the Obtained

The obtained shows a strong tendency to be inanimate because the obtained is supposed to be an object which can be transferred. And inanimate obtained thing should be movable so that the action of transfer can be achieved. The most appropriate candidate for the obtained would be a concrete touchable three—dimensional object which can be possessed by some person.

The obtained, the transferred object, refers to the receiver of the force or the target of infl uence, which is most often an entity, either physical or non-physical. When interpreted metaphorically or metonymically, the obtained can range from a concrete, three-dimensional object to a piece of discourse or information, and even a label of identity (a position, name). According to our research, the obtained falls into three big categories: the physical entity, the mental entity and the abstract entity.

(4) a. Do you accept visa? (physical entity)

b. She had acquired much wisdom during her long life. (mental entity)

4. Conclusion

Through the research, I come to the following conclusions: every “obtaining” verb invokes a unique semantic frame which is rooted in our daily experience. Therefore, in order to have a comprehensive understanding of “obtaining” verbs, we need to resort to a series of concepts related to them and our encyclopedic knowledge should also be activated. The “obtaining” verbs constitute a special group of verbs because they share the same basic profile of getting or gaining the possession of something, but each differs in the particulars of the rich background frames involved.

Bibliography

1.Evans, V. & M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistic: An introduction [M]. Edinburgh University Press.

2.Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame semantics [A]. Linguistics in the Morning Calm [C]. Seoul: Hanshin.

3.Fillmore, C. J. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics [A]. In R.W. Cole(eds.). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory [C]. Bloomington: Indiana University Press: 76-138.

4.Goldberg, A. 2008. Construction at Work: the Natrue of Generalization in Language [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5.Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I [M]. Stanford/California: Stanford University Press.

6.Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

— 55 —