Emotion in lexicon and grammar: lexical-constructional interface of Mandarin emotional predicates

Abstract

The unique behaviors of emotional (or psychological) predicates have long been studied as a central issue in developing theoretical accounts for the interaction of lexical semantics and argument realization (cf. Talmy, Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 1985; Talmy, Typology and process in concept structuring, 2000; Croft, Surface subject choice of mental verbs, 1986; Dowty, Language 67: 547-619, 1991; Jackendoff, Semantic structures, 1991; Jackendoff, Language, consciousness, culture: essays on mental structure, 2007; Van Voorst, Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 65-92, 1992; Levin, English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation, 1993; Pesetsky, Zero syntax, 1995. etc.). As a preliminary attempt to integrate seemingly diverse proposals, this paper aims to explore the possible range of conceptualizing and hence lexicalizing emotion-related states and activities, by examining the intriguing interactions between lexical and constructional form-meaning mapping relations realized in Mandarin emotional predicates. While it is commonly recognized that emotional predicates differ in selecting an Experiencer or a Stimulus as subject, a tripartite distinction is attested with Mandarin emotional predicates as they display three unique patterns in terms of subject selection, morphological makeup and constructional association. The range of lexical-to-constructional variations in Mandarin lead to the postulation of a distinct causative relation-Affector to Affectee, reminiscent of the notion Effector proposed in Van Valin and Wilkins (Van Valin and Wilkins, Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning, 1996). Three major lexicalization patterns can thus be identified for the emotion lexicon: Experiencer-as-subject, Stimulus-as-subject, and Affector-as-subject. The three lexicalization patterns highlight three distinct ways of conceptualizing emotions. Finally, the isomorphic relation between lexical and constructional patterns in Mandarin is further discussed with its theoretical implications.

A Bayesian approach to establishing coreference in second language discourse: Evidence from implicit causality and consequentiality verbs

“…By this explanation, the L2 speakers in their study behaved differently than native English speakers due to differences between Chinese and English. In particular, compared with English, which has a large number of SE verbs, Chinese has a limited set of SE verbs, as causation for SE predicates is mainly being expressed in periphrastic causatives in Chinese (Liu, 2016; Zhang, 2003). Thus, it may be that the difference between L1 and L2 speakers found by Cheng and Almor resulted from L2 participants’ difficulty in understanding SE verbs, especially those without counterparts in their native language.…”

Exploring English by Means of Contrast

“…Admittedly, a full account should comment on the differentiation between Experiencer and Affectee and between Stimulus, Theme and Affector and monitor any derivational specialization in view of these semantic differentiations, but as this is an initial, exploratory research, in the remainder of the chapter these are discussed indiscriminately, with a few exceptions, in the relevant context. Affector and Affectee are defined for the special type of agentive-causative psych verbs such as Mary frightened John, which deviate from typical agentive verbs (Alexiadou 2016) but also from typical psych verbs (Liu 2016). They occupy the middle ground along the notions of affectedness and change and are associated with a special set of roles, which are defined as follows: "[d]ifferent from the nonsentient Stimulus, an Affector volitionally instigates an internal change on an Affectee in a more dynamic and eventive manner" (Liu 2016, 4).…”

“…Affector and Affectee (recognized by Liu (2016) as significant both for syntactic constructions and for lexicalization patterns) are not included in the list as they were defined in the previous part. The causative nature of purposeful evocation of emotional reactions collapses the agentive-causative and psych verb properties and maps over the mental event schema/frame over the dynamic (canonical) event schema.…”

“…Syntactic accounts of psych verbs have led to the establishment of implicational hierarchies of subject roles, "Stimulus prominent > Affector prominent > Experiencer prominent, if the leftmost, then all to the right" (Liu 2016, 44) and languages with preferences for one or the other of the possibilities as most frequent have been identified. Numerous other generalizations have been formulated concerning psych verbs, including the establishment of a second pair of basic semantic roles, Affector and Affectee, which emphasize volitional causation of psychological states in the affected party and degree of affectedness (e.g., Beavers 2011Beavers , 2013Kenny 1963;Liu 2016;Tenny 1987Tenny , 1992etc. ), such as John (Affector) irritated Peter (Affectee) with his constant nagging.…”

“…Psych verbs, despite the common label, constitute a heterogenous class. Beside the subdivision into the frequently recognized major classes cognition, emotion, desideration and perception (Halliday 1994;Downing 2015), numerous subclasses with distinguishable properties have been identified (Dixon 2005;Liu 2016) and distinct participant roles have been offered: e.g., Perceiver and Impression; Cogitator and Thought; Decision-maker and Course; Experiencer and Stimulus (Dixon 2005); Cause and Affectee, Affector and Afectee (Liu 2016), etc. This multiplicity arises from, on the one hand, the abundant dimensions along which the subtypes are differentiated: e.g., directedness, degree of intentionality, aspectual properties, causality, invited or uninvited emotion and various combinations of these and, on the other hand, from linguists' attempts to capture analytically the schema-based conceptual distinctions within psych verb frames, which far surpass in detail and complexity any syntactic classification of thematic/semantic roles.…”