Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NP [AGR=[PERS=3,NUM=sing]] John S NP [AGR= 1] [AGR= 1] VP V singing VP [AGR= 2] V [AGR= 2[PERS=3,NUM=sing]] is VP ∗ Figure 2: Agreement in FTAG In case of an adjunction, the tree being adjoined has exactly one leaf that is marked as the foot node (marked with an asterisk). Such a tree is called an auxiliary tree. To license its adjunction to a node n, the root and foot nodes must have the same label as n. When adjoining it to n, in the resulting tree, the subtree with root n from the old tree is attached to the foot node of the auxiliary tree. Non-auxiliary elementary trees are called initial trees. A derivation starts with an initial tree. In a final derived tree, all leaves must have terminal labels. In a TAG, one can specify for each node whether adjunction is mandatory and which trees can be adjoined. The subscripts NA and OA indicate adjunction constraints: NA signifies that for this node, adjunction is not allowed while OA signifies that adjunction is obligatory. In order to capture syntactic generalizations in a more satisfying way, the non-terminal node labels in TAG elementary trees are usually enriched with feature structures. The resulting TAG variant is called feature-structure based TAG (FTAG; Vijay-Shanker & Joshi 1988). In an FTAG, each node has a top and a bottom feature structure (except substitution nodes that have only a top). Nodes in the same elementary tree can share features. In an FTAG, adjunction constraints are expressed via the feature structures. During substitution and adjunction, the following unifications take place. In a substitution operation, the top of the root of the new initial tree unifies with the top of the substitution node. In an adjunction operation, the top of the root of the new auxiliary tree unifies with the top of the adjunction site and the bottom of the foot of the new tree unifies with the bottom of the adjunction site. Furthermore, in the final derived tree, top and bottom must unify for all nodes. Since nodes in the same elementary tree can share features, constraints among dependent nodes can be more easily expressed than in the original TAG formalism. Fig. 2 shows an example where the top feature structure is notated as a superscript and the bottom feature structure as a subscript of the respective node. 2.2. LTAG elementary trees The elementary trees of a TAG for natural languages are subject to certain principles (Frank 2002; Abeillé 2002). Firstly, they are lexicalized in that each elementary tree has at least one lexical item, its lexical anchor. A lexicalized TAG (LTAG) is a TAG that satisfies this condition for every elementary tree. Secondly, each elementary tree associated with a predicate contains ‘slots’, that is, leaves with non-terminal labels (substitution nodes or foot nodes) for all and only the arguments of the predicate (elementary tree minimality). Most argument slots are substitution nodes, in particular the nodes for nominal arguments (see the elementary tree for likes in Fig. 1). Sentential arguments are realised by foot nodes in order to allow long-distance dependency constructions such as Whom does Paul think that Mary likes?. Such extractions can be obtained by adjoining the embedding clause into the sentential argument (Kroch 1989; Frank 2002). As for semantic representation and the syntax-semantics interface, we basically build on 170
S 3 NP [I= 3] John [ person NAME John ] NP [I= 1] VP V NP [I= 2] eats ⎡ ⎤ eating ⎢ ⎥ ⎣AGENT 1⎦ THEME 2 4 NP [I= 4] pizza [ object TYPE pizza ] Figure 3: Syntactic and semantic composition for John eats pizza approaches which link a semantic representation to an entire elementary tree (cf. §1) and which model composition by unifications triggered by substitution and adjunction. For example, in Gardent & Kallmeyer (2003) (see also Kallmeyer & Joshi 2003, Kallmeyer & Romero 2008), every elementary tree is paired with a set of typed predicate logical formulas containing metavariables linked to features in FTAG structures. The syntactic composition then triggers unifications that lead to equations between semantic components. The focus of the present paper is on a decompositional frame semantics for elementary LTAG trees. Fig. 3 illustrates the locality of linking in a frame-semantic approach by a simple example (which does not exploit the decompositional potential of frame representations). The substitutions give rise to unifications between 1 and 3 and between 2 and 4 , which leads to an insertion of the corresponding argument frames into the frame of eats. Notice that the use of frames does not preclude an approach of the type described above for modeling semantic composition beyond the level of elementary trees, including the effect of logical operators such as quantifiers and other scope taking elements. But the technical details of such a combination remain to be worked out and are beyond the scope of this article. 2.3. Metagrammar and factorization LTAG allows for a high degree of factorization inside the lexicon, that is, inside the set of lexicalized elementary trees. Firstly, unanchored elementary trees are specified separately from their lexical anchors. The set of unanchored elementary trees is partitioned into tree families where each family represents the different realizations of a single subcategorization frame. For transitive verbs such as hit, kiss, admire, etc. there is a tree family (see Fig. 4) containing the patterns for different realizations of the arguments (canonical position, extraction, etc.) in combination with active and passive. The node marked with a diamond is the node that gets filled by the lexical anchor; the ‘empty’ symbol ε indicates the trace of an extraction. NP S VP V⋄ NP , NP NP ε S S VP V⋄ NP , NP V⋄ S VP PP P NP by , S NP S NP VP ε V⋄ PP P NP by , S NP S NP VP V⋄ NP ε , . . . Figure 4: Unanchored tree family for transitive verbs 171
Page 1 and 2:
EISS 9 Empirical Issues in Syntax a
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Preface v Valentina Bianch
Page 5:
Preface The ninth volume of the ser
Page 8 and 9:
contexts; we provide experimental e
Page 10 and 11:
which we included random intercepts
Page 12 and 13:
• Locality condition: The proposi
Page 14 and 15:
[[(1B′)]] f = {invite(john, x) |
Page 16 and 17:
focus projection, and require that
Page 18 and 19:
The term ‘root clause’ was intr
Page 20 and 21:
pared the degree of metrical promin
Page 22 and 23:
Focus in situ + negative tag Focus
Page 24 and 25:
Horvath, Julia. 2010. “Discourse-
Page 26 and 27:
languages: Hungarian (H) and Romani
Page 28 and 29:
attach-wh usually licenses a single
Page 30 and 31:
on’ requires an overt preposition
Page 32 and 33:
of syntactic priming: the stricter
Page 34 and 35:
(43) Nu văd cum și, mai important
Page 36 and 37:
for certain values to be identical
Page 38 and 39:
ing the CNJ-LST proposed for coordi
Page 40 and 41:
oth of these cases, as well as the
Page 42 and 43:
References Abeillé, Anne. 2005. Le
Page 44 and 45:
the addressee by virtue of linguist
Page 46 and 47:
dressee is enticed by the imperativ
Page 48 and 49:
some way. She notes that it is not
Page 50 and 51:
. A: Give me an aspirin! B: # I don
Page 52 and 53:
Effective preference structures can
Page 54 and 55:
the content gets realized (i.e. he
Page 56 and 57:
to the principle in (39), which aim
Page 58 and 59:
Kaufmann follows the second strateg
Page 60 and 61:
5. Portner 2005, 2007: a dedicated
Page 62 and 63:
to realize the imperative once he a
Page 64 and 65:
epresentation and defeasible reason
Page 66 and 67:
equative reading can be paraphrased
Page 68 and 69:
‘the greatest French soldier’ t
Page 70 and 71:
2.4. Plurals 2.4.1. Plural definite
Page 72 and 73:
group of people constituting the on
Page 74 and 75:
3. A(n) sole/*only The solution to
Page 76 and 77:
ichest i : richest ii :: only : sol
Page 78 and 79:
In the case of a singular definite
Page 80 and 81:
The lexical entries we have given f
Page 82 and 83:
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring.
Page 84 and 85:
In this paper, I show that a dialec
Page 86 and 87:
(3) […] argretter, qu’dins ch
Page 88 and 89:
2.3. Are there any restrictions on
Page 90 and 91:
stand to the right of que2, which,
Page 92 and 93:
heads FinP (Bovetto 2002, López 20
Page 94 and 95:
(24) a. j’prétinds qu’à l’h
Page 96 and 97:
. *T’as raison Colas, faut tacher
Page 98 and 99:
6. Conclusion This paper shows that
Page 100 and 101:
Appendix Frequency of DCC for embed
Page 102 and 103:
In this paper, I provide empirical
Page 104 and 105:
subjects are realized in a cleft to
Page 106 and 107:
problem with the examples in (11),
Page 108 and 109:
continuations chosen after exclusiv
Page 110 and 111:
The questions were of two forms: ei
Page 112 and 113:
quantified lexical subject any elem
Page 114 and 115:
QUD:Qui a corrigé les copies? SF S
Page 116 and 117:
Finally, the ranking proposed, with
Page 118 and 119:
Onea, Edgar, and David Beaver. 2011
Page 120 and 121:
semantics of these constructions ha
Page 122 and 123:
filter. A quantifier like two sailo
Page 124 and 125:
are not principal filters, can be c
Page 126 and 127: (22) monotone increasing NPs like a
Page 128 and 129: the equation of the formulas in (27
Page 130 and 131: presuppose the non-emptiness of the
Page 132 and 133: tune with the well-known observatio
Page 134 and 135: Keenan, Edward. 1996. The semantics
Page 136 and 137: (2) Paul veut que nous {soyons SUBJ
Page 138 and 139: (8) Le professeur subodore que les
Page 140 and 141: • verbs describing a course of ac
Page 142 and 143: The semantico-pragmatic condition h
Page 144 and 145: force is stronger than that of the
Page 146 and 147: dire (‘say’) or suggérer (‘s
Page 148 and 149: However, it must be stressed that t
Page 150 and 151: If it is the case that those moves
Page 152 and 153: certain environments. Again, the re
Page 154 and 155: Gross, Maurice. 1978. Correspondanc
Page 156 and 157: Semantically, the difference betwee
Page 158 and 159: (14) a. Descriptive meaning of (13)
Page 160 and 161: What is crucial here is that the en
Page 162 and 163: (30) a. Heute steigt sau die coole
Page 164 and 165: In the following, we will give a te
Page 166 and 167: These contrasts in their syntactic
Page 168 and 169: (50) [ QP je- [ DP der [ NP Student
Page 170 and 171: degree expression out of a seemingl
Page 172 and 173: 969264437.pdf. Koopman, Hilda, and
Page 174 and 175: semantic representation and computa
Page 178 and 179: Class CanSubj S Class DirObj VP Cla
Page 180 and 181: a. ⎡ ⎤ causation [ ] activity C
Page 182 and 183: lexical meaning PO pattern DO patte
Page 184 and 185: ⎡ ⎤ a. S causation [ ] NP [I= 1
Page 186 and 187: Class VSpine syntactic dimension VP
Page 188 and 189: sends ⎡ ⎤ causation EFFECTOR 8
Page 190 and 191: Crabbé, Benoit. 2005. Grammatical
Page 192 and 193: Claim 2. Semantic composition of ve
Page 194 and 195: (7) yo-k2nol-ú 3Z/N.SG.PAT-rain-ST
Page 196 and 197: inanimate are not selected by verba
Page 198 and 199: in (25), or from transitive to intr
Page 200 and 201: (26) a. ⎡ ⎤ English-transitive-
Page 202 and 203: Abstracting away from the particula
Page 204 and 205: As shown by the statement of the no
Page 206 and 207: (36) Áhs2 ni-ka-nláht-a-ke 2-té-
Page 208 and 209: coincident and dualic prefixes, mea
Page 210 and 211: aises, of course, the question of w
Page 213 and 214: A finer look at predicate decomposi
Page 215 and 216: kill is compatible with wide variet
Page 217 and 218: Do these relations correspond to di
Page 219 and 220: paper. The wider claim is that sube
Page 221 and 222: More significantly, all involve dir
Page 223 and 224: assume a syntactic view of event st
Page 225 and 226: other heads. Secondly, spell-out pa
Page 227 and 228:
Finally, (53) shows the inchoative
Page 229 and 230:
⏟ AA ⏟ (61) [ v P … v TR [ Ak
Page 231 and 232:
Negation-resistant polarity items A
Page 233 and 234:
To summarize, these indefinites can
Page 235 and 236:
covert alternative-sensitive operat
Page 237 and 238:
(17) a. any book = ∃x∈D. x is a
Page 239 and 240:
tion, negative quantifiers and with
Page 241 and 242:
Since PPIs are endowed with the [+D
Page 243 and 244:
4.5. Extra-clausal negation A cruci
Page 245 and 246:
What this data shows us is that PPI
Page 247 and 248:
Prima facie it appears to be the ca
show all

Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?