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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Class CanSubj S Class DirObj VP Class Subj CanSubj∨ExtractedSubj NP VP V⋄ NP V⋄ Class ExtractedSubj S Class ByObj VP [VOICE=passive] Class ActV VP [VOICE=active] NP [WH=yes] NP ε S VP V⋄ Class Transitive ((Subj∧ ActV)∨ByObj∨PassV)∧((DirObj∧ActV)∨(Subj∧PassV)) V⋄ P by PP NP V⋄ Class PassV VP [VOICE=passive] V⋄ Figure 5: MG fragment for transitive verbs Secondly, unanchored elementary trees are usually specified by means of a metagrammar (Candito 1999; Crabbé & Duchier 2005) which consists of dominance and precedence constraints and category assignments. The elementary trees of the grammar are defined as the minimal models of this constraint system. The metagrammar formalism allows for a compact grammar definition and for the formulation of linguistic generalizations. In particular, the metagrammatical specification of a subcategorization frame defines the set of all unanchored elementary trees that realize this frame. Moreover, the formalism allows us to define tree fragments that can be used in different elementary trees and tree families, thereby giving rise to an additional factorization and linguistic generalization. Phenomena that are shared between different tree families such as passivization or the extraction of a subject or an object are specified only once in the metagrammar and these descriptions become part of the descriptions of several tree families. Let us illustrate this with the small metagrammar fragment given in Fig. 5, which is of course very incomplete in that many tree fragments are missing and features are almost totally omitted. The first two tree fragments describe possible subject realizations: the subject can be in canonical position, immediately preceding the VP, or it can be extracted, with a trace in the canonical subject position. The class Subj comprises the different subject realizations. Similar classes exist for the different realizations of the object, while in Fig. 5 only the canonical position class is listed. Furthermore, there is a class for the by-PP in a passive construction. This is used only for passive, therefore the tree fragment contains a corresponding feature VOICE = passive. Besides these argument classes, our fragment contains two classes for active/passive morphology. Finally, the class Transitive specifies for each argument its different grammatical functions: the first argument can be the subject of an active sentence or the by-PP of a passive sentence or it can be omitted in a passive sentence. 1 The second argument can be the direct object or it can be promoted to a subject in a passive sentence. If we assume that the metagrammar constraints require the identification of the lexical anchor nodes, then the set of minimal models of this class includes the first four trees in Fig. 4, among others. Note that the difference between canonical subject and extracted subject is factored out in the class Subj. 1 We are computing minimal models, this is why the third possibility in the disjunction signifies that this argument is not realized. 172
A similar factorization is possible within the semantics. The semantic contribution of unanchored elementary trees, that is, constructions, can be separated from their lexicalization, and the meaning of a construction can be decomposed further into the meaning of fragments of the construction. Due to this factorization, relations between the different parts of a syntactic construction and the components of a semantic representation can be expressed. In the following, we will use the metagrammar factorization of elementary trees in order to decompose the semantics of double object and prepositional object constructions. 3. Frame-based semantics and the dative alternation 3.1. Frame semantics and lexical decomposition The program of Frame Semantics initiated by Fillmore (1982) aims at capturing the meaning of lexical items in terms of frames, which are to be understood as cognitive structures that represent the described situations or state of affairs. In their most basic form, frames specify the type of a situation and the semantic roles of the participants, that is, they correspond to feature structures of the kind used in Fig. 3 for representing eating situations. Frame semantics as currently implemented in the FrameNet project (Fillmore et al. 2003) basically builds on such plain role frames, and it is a central goal of FrameNet to record on a broad empirical basis how the semantic roles are expressed in the morphosyntactic environment of the frame evoking word. In contrast to pure semantic role approaches to argument realization, many current theories of the syntax-semantics interface are based on predicate decomposition and event structure analysis (cf. Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005). These theories assume that the morphosyntactic realization of an argument depends crucially on the structural position of the argument within the decomposition. Two simple notational variants of such a decomposition of the causative verb break are shown in (1), formulated along the lines of Van Valin & LaPolla (1997) and Rappaport Hovav & Levin (1998). (1) [[x ACT] CAUSE[BECOME[y BROKEN]]] With respect to the goals of our project, a decompositional semantic representation is the natural choice since it allows us to associate specific components of the semantic representation with specific syntactic fragments. We integrate event structure decomposition with frame semantics. 2 That is, we use frames, understood as potentially nested typed feature structures with additional constraints, for representing decompositional templates of the sort shown in (1). Fig. 6a shows a fairly direct translation of this template into a frame representation. Note the different uses of CAUSE in (1) and Fig. 6. In (1), CAUSE expresses the causation relation between the activity and the change of state. In the frame representation, by contrast, the attribute CAUSE describes the ‘cause component’ of the causation scenario. The graph on the right of Fig. 6 can be regarded either as an equivalent presentation of the frame, or as a minimal model of the structure on the left if the latter is seen as a frame description. It is worth mentioning that there is also a fairly close correspondence of decompositional frame representations to event logical formulas in a neo-Davidsonian style. For if each subframe is interpreted as representing a reified subcomponent of the described event, then the structure shown in Fig. 6 gives rise to a formula like (2), 2 Koenig & Davis (2006), who make a similar proposal, put emphasis on the fact that the part of the frame relevant for argument linking can be a proper subframe of the semantic representation associated with the expression in question. That is, the ‘referential node’ of the frame need not coincide with the root of the frame. While we do not exploit this possibility in our analysis, we do not exclude it in principle. 173
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 176 and 177: NP [AGR=[PERS=3,NUM=sing]] John S N
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?