14
THE ANALYSIS OF
CATASTROPHE
CAUSATION
AA eee
Cecilia Tsu
Linguistics 40——Semantics
Professor Ted Fernald
Spring 1995
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the linguistic implications of verbs that
can be deemed “catastrophe causation” verbs- to *mess up,
screw up, and screw over* are such verbs which denote a
pressing situation has occurred to the speaker or subject
referred to. Through analysis of the lexical semantic vari-
ances associated with these verbs, the author will account
for the evolution of a newly-invented catastrophe causation
verb, *to scrod* and explain why it has become permanent-
ly adopted into individuals’ lexicons.
he English language contains a multitude
of verbs which can be deemed “catastrophe
causation” verbs; they are used in expres-
sions to connote some pressing predicament has
come over the speaker or the subject he or she is
referring to. Often these verbs employ a mandato-
ty preposition in their usage. This paper will
address how three such verbs serve the function of
denoting catastrophe causation, primarily
through analyzing their lexical semantic vari-
ances, truth conditions, and argument structures.
The analysis will serve as background for explain-
ing what I have termed the “scrod phenomenon,”
the prolific evolution of a newly invented, all-
encompassing catastrophe causation verb
amongst a group of individuals. Finally, a propos-
al as to why this new verb has essentially been
adopted permanently into the léxicons of the
individuals introduced to it will be discussed.
The three verbs selected for analysis are mess up, screw
up, and screw over. All of these verbs are commonly used
to express the causation of some sort of catastrophe or
predicament. Each contains a preposition necessary to
the respective syntax and semantics of the contextual
usage of the verb; the verb taken without the indicated
preposition either has a bizarre interpretation, or a mean-
ing unrelated to the catastrophe causation function
under examination. It should also be noted that these
verbs are often interchangeable in everyday conversa-
tion, though closer analysis will show that subtle vari-
ances prevail, and it is these variances that could possi-
bly account for the “scrod phenomenon” which will be
later discussed.
The verb “mess up” generally describes a state
or process of disarray and turmoil occurring, usu-
ally (but not necessarily) as the result of some
agent.
(1) a. Nixon messed up.
b. Nixon messed up the country.
c. The country was messed up.
These example sentences suggest the following
argument structures (active and passive construc-
tions):
mess up: A. Agent <(Theme)>
B.
As we can see, the truth conditions for “mess
up” in active construction require an agent
(“mess-upper”), while leaving theme (the “messed
up”) syntactically optional. Though not always
obvious, the theme is semantically obligatory and
entailed in the universe of messing up. In La, for
example, there must be something which Nixon
exercised the act of messing up upon (the country,
politics, his life), even though it does not exist
syntactically. No matter how vague, a theme is
mandated by semantics in this case, so that when
someone speaks of messing up without specifying