Taxonomía Léxica K.B Kiingi Luganda Language

LEXICAL TAXONOMY
By Dr. K.B. Kiingi
This paper purports to lay a firmly principled method of taxonomizing
the lexicon of any given human language. It will be recalled that
earlier attempts by writers like Roget (1852), Dornseiff (1934), Hallig
and Von Wartburg (1952), Wehrle and Eggers (1961) and McArthur
(1981) have all provoked a hail of critical discussions as manifested in
Ballmer andBrennenstuhl (1986:112-126) and Jackson (1988:216222). The overall verdict of the discussants is that the taxonomies are
pseudo-taxonomies since they do not exhibit a lucid hierarchical
structure that is an indispensable feature of a scientific taxonomy. The
lexical taxonomy I undertake to enunciate in this paper is formally
analogous to but more productive than the biological one. First ofall I
intend to present a situation-role theory which happens to bear a very
close affinity to versions of semantic participant role theory such as
those treated in Quirk et al (1985) and Brown and Miller (1991).
To a physicist “ change of state” is the change from one to another of
the three states of matter, i.e. gaseous, liquid or solid state, Whenever
we use language, we also talk aboutstates and changes of state but of
anything such as quantity, number, space, time, force, heat and
electric charge. Let a state or change of state be formalizable as in (1).

(1)

Š [θ1 ε1 + θ2 ε2]

Š is a situation predicate, θ1 and θ2 are semantic roles of the thought
categories ε1and ε2 respectively. As thought categories I posit: state q,
change of state c, quantity u, number n, spacel, time t, matter m,
material object r, biotic matter b, plant f, animal z, human h, electric

charge e, mechanical force k, sound s, heat w, light o, and abstract
product i.
As roles I propose: general situation bearer Q, volition-bound situation
bearer E, holonym W, hypernym V. reference O, source X, direction D,
medium P, measure M, comitative T, goal G, opposition N, equality U,augmentative

S,

diminutive

L,

general

contactor

A,

perceptive

contactor R, intracorporal contactor I. psychomotor contactor B,
cognitive contactor K, attitudinal (or emotional) contactor F, contacted
H, causer C, volition-bound causer Z, and effected Y.
Using contact, causation and volition as classificatory criteria, the
participant roles can be tabulated as follows.ZERO- VOLITION
ZERO-CONTACT

VOLITION- BOUND

Q

E

W,V,O,X,D,P,
M,T,G,N,U,S,L

CONTACT

B

R

K

I
CAUSATION

A

F

C

Z

H

Y

In the situation formula (1), θ1 can assume the values Q, E, A, R, I, B,
K, F, C, and Z, θ2 while can range over W, V, O, X, D, P, M, T, G, N, U,
S, L, H, and Y.
With (2) – (19) taken from Brown and Miller (1991:309) and (20) (58) fromQuirk et al (1985:754) ample exemplification of the
situation – role theory follows.

(2)

She was singing.

Š[Zh + Š[Qs + Xh]]

(3)

The string broke.

Š[Qr + Gq]

(4)

John sharpened the knife.

Š[Zh + Š[Qr + Gq]]

(5)

The dog is digging a hole.

Š[Zz + Yl]

(6)

Harold ran a mile.

Š[Eh +Mi]

(7)

Susan went to Denmark.

Š[Eh + Gl]

(8)

Yasuko isarriving from Kyoto.

Š[Eh + Xl]

(9)

Helen traveled via Samarkand.

(10)

She gave the book to Bill.

Š2[Zh2 + Š1[Bh1 + Hr]]

(11)

I got the cassette from David.

Š[[Bh2 + Hr] +Xh1]

(12)

I contacted Jane via her sister.

Š[[Bh1 + Hh2] + Ph3]

(13)

The painting costs $ 5000.

Š[Eh + Pl]

Š[Qr + Mi]

(14)

Miranda knew all the answers. Š[Kh + Hi]

(15)Harriet owns a cat.

(16)

Celia is cold /sad.

(17)

The child is sleeping.

(18)

The town is dirty.

(19)

Fiona is the convener.

Š[Bh + Hc]

(20)

She’s happy.

Š[Fh + Hq]

(21)

He turned traitor.

(22)

The Sahara is hot.

Š[Al +Hq]

(23)

Last night was warm.

Š[At +Hq]

(24)

The show was interesting.

Š[Ac +Hq]

(25)

It’s windy.

Š[Ai...